I didn't read tfa but for long unclaimed bags this has been SOP forever.
Once the bags are recorded with baggage service and they've been in the federated database for so long, if the owners do not claim, the contents are donated where appropriate.
The bags themselves sometimes are set aside as ad hoc replacements for anyone who has a bag badly damaged in handling or other mishap.
Yeah, when your passengers know where the bags are, let them take them, don't pretend they're "lost" because the airline doesn't want to pay for delivery.
They don't know where they are 100%. I think that's the issue. They have a warehouse of 1000s of luggage where the tags are likely torn off or missing. Are you going to allow them to search the entire warehouse? What's to prevent them from taking someone else's luggage? How are you going to ensure they only take their bag? If not, are you liable if they take someone else's bag which contain PII and do identity fraud?
When its donated the charity, there is an agreement that the charity will remove any PII or personalized stuff before selling the rest.
I can’t imagine tearing a tag is very common. Even if it affected a few passengers on a plane, process of elimination can lead to these people getting their bags if the airline tried at all.
They could have scanned the beeping AirTag with a compatible device, which would have at least identified the owner - and likely matched a phone number to a reservation ticket.
They certainly do not want to do so, but the capability existed and they declined to exercise it.
Once the owner’s put it in Lost Mode, which all of those beeping bags were in, then you just visit the link it gives you when you scan it (it can do NFC, it doesn’t even require an Apple device) and the owner’s contact information is shown.
The airline’s behavior instead resembles: “We couldn’t see any contact information in the outside and maybe we checked a zipper pocket for a piece of paper but ultimately we would rather give up and pay you a lost bag fee, than have to employ a human being to put more than thirty seconds of effort into each bag.”
> They have a warehouse of 1000s of luggage where the tags are likely torn off or missing. Are you going to allow them to search the entire warehouse?
Sure, why not? Let them in and have staff on hand with them requiring them to prove ownership by identifying the contents. Would that cost a lot to the airline? You bet, which is why they don't make the effort. But airlines never make an effort to help passengers unless the government tells them they must. So either make it mandatory or impose punitive damages when airlines lose bags (far above the cost of the luggage).
Maybe the airline would make an honest effort not to lose baggage if they were actually held accountable.
> Are you going to allow them to search the entire warehouse?
Yes. Especially when you can make your bag beep by tapping a button on your phone.
When you grab a bag from baggage claim, nobody cross-checks your ID against the bag. We already trust people not to steal. If you steal from a warehouse, the same thing would happen as if you stole from a baggage claim.
How is that clear? Nowhere in the blog post does it say that the bags had tag or PII information to identify the owners.
From the perspective of the airline they were unclaimed — likely the tags had torn off and the airline had no idea who to connect the bag to.
Maybe it would be a nice service to incorporate AirTag tracing for unclaimed luggage, especially if the tracing was based on a standard and not specific to a single luxury brand. But regardless that would be a new SOP and isn’t part of the current one.
If the bag had a readable tag and the database wasn't wrong, then it wouldn't be unclaimed, presumably. Not for certain of course, but you gotta imagine the most common error is that the bag lost its tag and now its impossible to find the owner.
> If the bag had a readable tag and the database wasn't wrong, then it wouldn't be unclaimed, presumably. Not for certain of course, but you gotta imagine the most common error is that the bag lost its tag and now its impossible to find the owner.
I don't think any of your assumptions are founded. If the airline decides the cost to pay out is cheaper than the cost to return, then paying out would be a totally reasonable business decision. Frankly without any more detailed (internal) information, I don't think you should presume such things.
I do think its more likely the tag fell off than the airline is lying as a matter of standard operating procedure. I can't exclude the possibility, but I don't think it's as likely.
All of this is speculative, so I can't really say you're wrong, but I find your assumption that the airline wouldn't lie very odd. Businesses lie pretty much constantly as a matter of standard operating procedure. My personal assumption is that when a business tells you that something like this can't be done, they really just mean that they won't do it. I mean it's not like they couldn't track down the bag if they chose to devote the resources to it. I'd basically say that for businesses it is basically _always_ just a question of balancing costs.
Anyway like I said all of this is speculative. But I find it interesting that you and I have such diametrically opposed viewpoints when it comes to this.
I went through an Air Canada lost baggage fiasco this Christmas.
The bag was lost for 9 days, with zero updates on the tracing report. The last update was in the connecting airport. We managed to find it, sitting placed at the destination airport with a few hundred other bags, tags were 100% fine on our bags and the others. At any point someone could have walked through, scanned the bags, and updated the tracing reports. But nobody did.
This isn’t because the tags were ripped off, it’s because it’s Air Canada’s SOP.
They really replace your bag sometimes? Is that like a service they offer or do they do it without telling you and hope you recognize a strange looking bag as yours? I feel like it would almost be simpler to hand you store credit for the in airport luggage store.
The more I read and hear about luggage handling (this article, lost luggage last summer, cbikes are often damaged in planes...), and after unsatisfying experiences (waiting for hours to check in or to claim bags), I'm more willing to take the train than the plane !
In Europe, you show up into a train station, handle your bikes or precious bag yourself, get in your train, and step out to leave the station immediately.
To anyone in the airline industry : the bad user experience with bags doesn't encourage me to carry bags in the cabin. It makes me get buses or trains whenever I have stuff with me.
This should be a reminder that _users_ know best, not management. They have _needs_ not because they're picky, and won't adapt to your service. They will get an service to match their needs.
I feel like airlines don't want you to check in bags because they say it's premium, and _good_ passengers don't need them. Well, if your feature is 'premium', you don't develop it it to offer a satisfying user experience.
Bags should be on the MVP. You want bags and to get them bag, not just money.
Or users move on to others company products.
If only we had a choice in the U.S. Flying across the country costs about the same as taking a train with amtrak. It takes 5 hours to make that flight or so, call it 8 hours dealing with the airport. The train ride on the other hand is 3 days, like its still the 1800s. The train could also face big delays.
Definitely, there’s a ton of low hanging fruit to be picked in the US, in both the NE and the Midwest alone. Pretty much everywhere east of the Mississippi is a prime target for high speed rail.
Brightline is giving us a decent high speed rail in Florida, and I’ve heard they’re doing something on the west coast too. I can’t wait for it to be connected state wide, all the Disney trips … heh.
Sorry, I thought I put that in quotes when I posted. It’s high speed compared to everything else here, and better than what we had before.
That said, this is their plan for the expansion to Orlando:
> Brightline will terminate at this station once the 170-mile (270 km) Orlando Extension track is built. Trains will run up to 125 mph (201 km/h) with a travel time of approximately three hours from Orlando's airport to Miami.
Vancouver BC to Portland OR or San Diego to Sacramento and all thr cities in between could be competitive though. Its a shame that High Speed Rail is not a priority.
The sweet spot for HSP in North America is pretty small. The vast majority of people who could a ride afford already have a vehicle. And the vast majority of people don't live particularly close to a central rail station.
So even though there already is a sort of high speed rail between DC and Philly, I, as resident in the suburbs, would probably just drive unless work was paying for ubers on both ends. Even if Acela was a true HSP rail, that wouldn't really change my calculus.
So while there is a goldilocks zone where cars take too long and its too short for airplanes to be faster, it's probably not very viable.
I'm sure that works splendidly for some, but I used to commute into "the city" and while the commute itself wasn't particularly bad (thanks, Kindle!) it's still time spent commuting that isn't spent with my wife, my daughter, my dogs, or taking care of the neverending list of things that need to be done having bought an older home.
If my circumstances were different, and that time was mostly recoverable as leisure then it's absolutely great advice, but it doesn't scale to every person.
Why can't we build it then and have it work splendidly for some. There's a lot of people out there, it doesn't need to work for everybody. It would make your commute better too if half the drivers started taking a train instead.
Build / not build wasn't particularly what I was responding to. I think it's probably a good idea to build. Even if I didn't want to have it as part of my daily commute, there are still plenty of times it'd be useful to have more ways of getting places.
Because everybody is paying for it, when they (mostly) don't use it?
I live in a city with decent buses, 3 street train lines and a commuter rail, and use the street lines frequently. Unless your departure and destination are right on the train line, you're still looking at a 1 hour - 2 hour commute with possible missed connections every step of the way. To canvas the city thoroughly you would need buses or trains running every 10 minutes, on every 3rd or 5th block. They would also need to be preferable to the alternative (a personal vehicle with no disruptive passengers, controlled climate, that is available when and where you need it).
Do I love taking the train into the city center for a night on the town, or out to the airport to avoid parking? Absolutely. Will I sacrifice 3 hours out of my day just so that I can say I'm saving the planet? Probably not.
The only way it would work would be some giant weave pattern of train lines where 1 car continues on, one departs left, and one departs right every stop. The budget and logistics of that would make it prohibitively expensive and prone to failure. There are also loads of reasons why people can't take transit (kids, cargo, late night / early morning schedules) and if they're not 80% solved, it will never catch on in the states.
I understand what you're saying, but that just isn't really how any society works. You pay for schools you don't use, libraries most people don't use, healthcare for the old and poor, faraway parks you'll probably never visit, community colleges you'll never attend, etc. etc. etc. In return, your community and life gets remarkably better as you reap the indirect benefits of everyone around you receiving these services. In addition, people without cars pay for your roads and snowplows and pothole fillers, anti-vaccine activists pay for the vaccines you take, and so on. It's all a beautiful mutually dependent circle that makes the world go round.
Why not turn your commute into a 5 min drive to the station, then a book?
Such a disconnect.
If it was a 5 minute drive, in city, you could just walk there in 10.
Parent effectively said "not close". So you suggest a 1 hour drive, a 2 hour train, instead of a 90 minute drive?
(You also have to wait for the train to leave, wait for its stops along the way, and be there precisely on time (hence the wait at the start)).
I find so many of the comments boil down to "I live deep in a city, never drive, and am in an entirely different geopolitical environment, but I know what makes sense for you!
Public transit does not make sense outside of super dense areas.
Having a system that takes people only from where they live to where they work is much more inconvenient when individual cars allow people to go from work to the kids’ sports game to Costco to a relatives house and then home.
But that model of public transit is not tenable outside of places with density like Manhattan. Even in New York City, all the public transit is mostly focused on getting people into and out of Manhattan, so people in outer boroughs like to have cars.
This is what a public transit map that would compete with the convenience of individual cars would look like:
The station that is 5 min near me is like a 30 minute subway ride (plus 0-20 minute wait) to Union Station in DC. Then I'd have to switch to Acela (with some wait time probably 30 minutes for a safety buffer).
And my house is too expensive because I'm only 5 minute from the subway. The vast majority of people have to live further.
If I was going to downtown Philly, might be worth it. But if I wasn't, then driving would absolutely be a lot fast. Since I'd have to navigate the last miles there adding more time.
The ability to just leave whenever I want without having to connect a bunch of train rides is pretty valuable even if it took longer.
EDIT: and to make it clear, I'm not a suburanite who is allergic to public transport. Until a year ago, I lived in the city and didn't have a personal car. And even now, I'd take Acela to NYC rather than fly or drive. It just doesn't make sense for other stops on the way like Philly, Wilmington, Baltimore. And Boston would take too long on Acela, and I'd fly instead.
I usually take the train from where I am in the western suburbs of Boston to NYC.
But... doing so requires driving an hour in basically the wrong direction to the suburban Amtrak station. And then it takes longer than driving directly would. The only reason I do it is that I hate driving into Manhattan and parking there. Whereas when I arrive by train I can just walk to my hotel.
And, yeah, for Boston to DC I'll typically fly. The train is viable and I've done it but it's a full day trip vs. a short flight. And one of the airports is right on the metro vs. the NYC airports which are not.
The neat thing about trains is that they can stop multiple times in a metropolitan area. In Tokyo your options to Osaka are Tokyo station, Shinagawa and Yokohama; in Berlin they usually stop at Ostkreuz, Hbf and Spandau.
This is enabled by the fact that train stations have much more limited footprints, and that multiple train stations in a city do not get in each other’s way.
I'm not sure tbh. Would you trade a 6hr flight (travel time) for a 13hr train ride? 15? I could see people that would. Flights are incredibly uncomfortable and it is hard to work on them. On that long of a flight you've practically given up your day anyways. If on the train you had WiFi, could stretch your legs, eat mediocre food, and it was cost competitive, I would see plenty of people making that switch.
I definitely think that the markets would be far better doing along the coasts rather than connecting them, but I don't think there is zero market either.
It’s an interesting equation. You need to add about 2 hours to the flight for check in, parking, travel etc. and then you need to add a bit more to the arrival for getting out the airport and transport to where you are going.
If the train is an overnight with a bed, and goes midtown to midtown, I’d take it every time.
> Would you trade a 6hr flight (travel time) for a 13hr train ride? 15?
For as slow as such a train ride would be, it still seems implausibly fast. For example, flying from Seattle to Miami today takes less than 6 hours. If you laid a perfectly straight rail line all the way from Seattle to Miami, and ran a TGV along it at its top speed with no stops, it'd take more than 13 hours. And once you make the train case even slightly more realistic instead of using all of those best-case assumptions that are impossible in practice, you easily exceed 15 hours too.
If it was meaningfully cheaper it definitely would be competitive. Taking a train is a more pleasant experience on multiple levels.
As far as the ancillary logistics, less secondary infrastructure is needed meaning you don't have to go to a designated chunk of land the size of a midsized town that literally cannot be conveniently located, and you avoid the hassle associated with onboarding (read: the TSA). Luggage also doesn't seem to be nearly as much of a hassle for whatever reason. I'm not sure if this would carry over to true high-volume long distance trains, but at the very least the baggage problem is conceptually simpler than at an airport.
There are definitely downsides for the passenger, mostly the added time in transit, but in my experience this only matters is when you require quick turnaround and spontaneity in your travel — in which case you'd just take a plane. For a trip that is planned in advance, even a cross-country train trip can make sense, especially if you work on your computer/phone.
The main downside is that long-distance train travel requires a sleeper car and a roomette to be really viable in the general case, and this is hard to scale. This may be an unsolvable problem since it's just so much less space-efficient than row seats, but if it isn't I see no reason why long distance rail couldn't carve out a significant chunk of the cross-country market.
The problem is also that high speed rail has quite high maintenance requirements. Currently most if not all networks perform this maintenance at night, so trains cannot run while maintenance is ongoing.
How often does this maintenance need to be performed? To be frank, I find it very unlikely that the Shinkansen, with its reputation for reliability, is having repairs performed on track sections at anything higher than a monthly cadence.
Not just repairs, but track and tunnel conditioning monitoring, checking the tension in catenary lines, the maintenance of the trains themselves, etc.
Is every track maintained every night? No. But:
* it is incredibly dangerous for a high speed train to collide with anything low speed (track maintenance vehicles, supplies, or workers). The rights of way are so constrained that there is no safe way to have them maintain only one track out of two, so they insist on total separation as a policy: https://international-railway-safety-council.com/wp-content/...
* the Shinkansen are a two track network without parallel lines of the same gauge, so any maintenance reroute would require changing to either a normal train or to a bus, making sleepers impossible to operate normally. Even if you could though, trains need regular schedules for both riders and employees, and using different reroutes every night would be a scheduling nightmare
That's a bad way to compare. You are obviously not factoring in the checkin,boarding,de-boarding, and travel to airport times, which will almost add up to similar times.
Japan has literally bought major cities in commute distance with bullet trains.
What takes 10 hours in a flight will take 13 hours on fast trains. You factor that into your plan and travel comfortably and peacefully. If America is serious about trains, all it has to do is add more sleeper cars, and you will see how liberating train travel is.
If US like the rest of the world, make trains popular and brings the costs down for trains and actually has more connectivity. The distance will quickly not become a problem. Like I said all we need is a sleeper coach, and we just have comfortable nap to the destination over night. India is able to transport millions of people in 2500+ KMs routes a day, you are looking at the people who are forced to pay and travel in those forsaken airliner comfort. Trains will only bring more people together when they connect more and make it affordable.
Trains have hauled passengers for about 200 years. I’d love them to increase in popularity and availability, but suspect that there won’t be huge change if it hasn’t happened by now.
I took shinkansen last week. Some of it was quite wobbly. Passing oncoming train sounds like explosion that almost gives you heart attack. Entering tunnels blocks your ears due pressure difference.
Yes the seats are obviously more comfy than plane (although one should compare with business class because it costs similar), but turbulence is not fair comparison.
Hijacking a train in the US is currently pointless. While it’s true you can’t route a 200mph train into One WTC, a 200mph train full of people is now a good bargaining chip. You have a captive audience and you can derail the thing someplace where it can cause a lot of damage. At the end of the day, hijackings are about creating publicity. Don’t think that a popular high speed train would be completely immune from security requirements just because you can’t attack arbitrary targets.
No it's not. Positive train control is universal on high speed lines. As soon as the train approaches a red or yellow without slowing the brakes will go into full emergency. Most such systems will also enforce a full stop if the speed limit (which the train knows, and is based on the derailment speed with a healthy margin).
The only real credible threat is mass violence against the passengers. That could just as easily occur in any crowed public space.
The easiest ways to derail a train are damage the tracks, damage a bridge (possibly as the train goes over it), or leave something (eg a stolen car) in the train's way.
Not coincidentally, these are historically the most commonly used methods.
Boarding a passenger car from which it is hard to get to the engine where the engineer is driving the train is far less likely to be effective.
Security in airports is just for show and hijackings. Do you know where to blow yourself if you want to easily cause 200+ dead ? Right in the middle of the damn airport, where everyone is packed and waiting.
For a lot of people, not needing to drive into the crowded downtown is a feature, not a bug. Where I live is somewhat unusual as there's a suburban Amtrak station while the airport is adjacent to downtown. One reason it's more convenient to take the train to NYC.
To quote the great Yogi Berra, "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."
No matter how many want to avoided crowded places, they are crowded because a lot of people are already there, and a lot of others would like to grow. And this is only possible if there actually are good ways to get there.
To serve a geographically spread out group, it is reasonable to build a a hub and spoke system. And the geographically convenient place to put the hub generally already has a city built there exactly because it is geographically convenient.
Except that land is expensive and things like airports in particular are generally not built adjacent to those downtowns. Train stations often are as they don't require anything like the land but they can have suburban stations as well.
If I--and almost certainly many other people who don't live in the city--had to drive into and park in downtown Boston to take Amtrak it wouldn't remotely be a consideration. And, yes, there's commuter rail but now you're adding hours to traveling.
At that point I'm just driving into NY or maybe driving to a NY commuter rail station.
> What takes 10 hours in a flight will take 13 hours on fast trains.
Okay, let's look at that bullet train. At best that's 200 mph. A trip from SF to NY is then going to be 12.85 hrs. Assuming we go in a perfectly straight line (trains can't do this) and no stops. We'll say 13 for ease. A nonstop flight (not hard to find) is about 5.5 hrs.
In both situations we're only considering the travel time of the vehicle and not including anything like layovers/stops or boarding and unboarding. These are not one or two hour differences in travel time and thus security would make the difference, there are over 7hrs difference! You could fly all the way back to SFO before that bullet train rider gets to NYC (you're already through security). (We're also assuming that as trains get more popular that similar security theater isn't also introduced)
Now I do think people would still take the train fwiw because even with a 7hr travel time takes up all your day and flying sucks. Plenty of people will make this trade as long as trains don't sardine pack like airlines do. But let's also not fool ourselves into thinking the times are roughly the same and that that train also isn't going to take closer to 16hrs to go across country. Which even means doubling the speed (400mph) still makes it slower than a plane with security check-ins.
There are plenty that average 200mph and the Chinese seem to be getting a bit higher, with one operating at 286mph.
They are working on considerably faster ones.
Surely a US train could aim to be up there with the fastest?
There's no way any future US bullet train could hit 200 mph through the Sierra Nevada and Rocky mountain ranges unless we bore tunnels straight through.
Transcontinental bullet trains across North America are a total pipe dream just based on simple geography. But bullet trains should play a role in our regional transportation infrastructure.
Our rail system is built for slow speed freight hauling and passenger trains have to share the same rails (and give priority to freight, which is why we have enormous unexpected delays on our passenger trains). It's simply not feasible to run bullet trains in the country without building entirely new tracks. It is an enormous and expensive undertaking to build new rails across 2600 miles, through a couple enormous mountain ranges and more.
Note that I calculated with 200mph and did not consider stops or a train's need to travel not in straight lines. Kube made a comment comparing with Japan's system that may extrapolate better as it considers stops[0], but may bound from the other direction as there are likely higher demand for stops along that route than SF to NY, which is mostly traveling through low population dense areas. Consider that my napkin calculation was intended to give many advantages to the train for a naive best case scenario.
Also note that while the Shanghai Maglev does have a maximum speed of 268mph it has an average speed of 139/155mph (different schedules = different speeds). We need to consider average when calculating travel times. You'll also note that on that CNN page that several of those trains have test runs that reach near 400mph! This is good for considering where we might be able to get with high levels of optimization but they do not reflect the reality of speeds that a passenger will actually experience. Considering the extrapolations we'd realistically need trains that could have max speeds above 600mph and sustained speeds (through quite windy areas and mountains mind you) of 400+mph.
I do think cross continental passenger trains can still have a market but I think more coastal focused lines will have substantially better markets and we shouldn't expect trans-continental train alternatives to planes being popular for quite some time. The coastal lines mostly make sense because the total times are still relatively short and we consider the convenience tradeoff more influential. I'm pretty sure that this trade-off is highly non-linear with respect to travel time (convenience weakly dominates in short transit but time strongly dominates on long hauls).
Getting trains up past 600mph is going to be right at breaking the sound barrier. There's no way communities and people living near tracks would put up with constant sonic booms all day. It's just not feasible.
> Assuming we go in a perfectly straight line (trains can't do this) and no stops
I looked it up out of curiosity. To travel the length of Japan's bullet train network, which goes most of the length of the country, it takes 3 trains and 31 stops, for a total of just under 12 hours. A flight between the same locations is just over 3 and a half hours.
For those who want to look it up, these figures are for Kagoshima-Chuo Station to Shin-Hakodate Hokuto Station.
I can see how the train would be come out ahead for shorter distances, but I think this kind of trip is more reasonable of a comparison with the distance of flights that many Americans are taking.
> What takes 10 hours in a flight will take 13 hours on fast trains.
How do you figure that? I'm thinking out loud here: If we use some real examples: I'm lucky in that most of my family lives near major travel hubs, so I can fly direct most of the time. However, they all live in various places along the east coast of the US whereas I'm on the west coast. My trip last summer to see one group of them represented a 3100 mile / 5000 kilometer journey.
The flight was 5 hours and 30 minutes. Let's add 2 hours of airport shenanigans to cover showing up ahead of boarding, handling bags, picking up luggage on the far side, etc. So 7 hours 30 minutes of travel (not counting commute to or from airport, but you'd have to get to your high speed rail station as well)
(as an addendum, I was able to take public transit on both sides - busses & BART on the bay area side, and a local commuter rail on the far side. I had to get picked up by car from the train station though, no busses in that town)
The fastest Japanese and European high speed trains go 300 km/hr. That's 16 and a half hours of rolling at top speed - no stops, slowdowns, sharing slower track, etc. If you stop at major cities along the way (say one stop per US state), you're probably looking at 20 hours of time on the train - each stop meaning you have to stop for 5-10 minutes, slow down and speed up, generally not be able to hit top speed in the confines of the city, etc.
The transit time would be nearly triple in the best case scenario for a coast to coast flight in the US.
The only thing I can think that would mitigate this is, as you said, sleeper cars. West coast to east coast is generally considered a lost day between the travel time and the timezone shift. I guess if you start your train journey in the early morning and sleep on the train that evening, arriving in the early morning next day, it could make up for the "get to the family's place and immediately go to sleep" pattern. You're just sleeping enroute rather than at your destination.
For "mid range" journeys, take a bullet train trip I did in Japan: Sendai -> Hiroshima. I spent 6 hours on the train, the flight would've been about and hour and a half plus the extra 2 hours of airport fun. Because it was a vacation I wasn't going to meaningfully fill the "saved" 2 to 3 hours and the train was way more comfortable. But, for business travel, this wouldn't have been good. In the US it's not an uncommon pattern to take a flight to the next major city for same-day business to avoid hotel costs.
For flights so short the airport time exceeds or matches the train difference, obviously this doesn't matter (e.g. SF <-> LA travel if California high speed rail manages to survive until completion).
But you may be sent from SF to Chicago and be expected to attend meetings upon arrival. Can't do that with high speed rail. Even if they went 50% faster, it'll take 7-8 hours to reach Chicago from California.
For the record, I love high speed trains. I've enjoyed using them in the countries that have them. But the longest journey I've ever taken on one is that Sendai to Hiroshima trip, and the second longest is Munich to Berlin (I originated in Innsbruck, Austria but the leg to Munich was not on a high speed train).
It'd be great if we could replace "intra-state" or "neighboring-state" flights with trains, places where they really are faster or at comparable travel times. Obviously none of this is looking at the fact that all of these high speed trains are electric, so they could be powered from zero-carbon or carbon-neutral sources, whereas air travel is a significant source of emissions. But that's a separate argument.
Purely European case - during height of Covid frenzy at end of 2021, I spent 2 weeks paragliding in south of Spain around Malaga. When departure time came, home country (Switzerland) changed covid rules into PCR-before-boarding, which was impossible to obtain where I was.
So I took train since land borders were much more permissive. Instead of 1.5h flight + a bit of time extra around, it took me full 2 days with extra sleep in Barcelona of fastest bullet trains Europe has (TGV + Spanish equivalent, 300kmh was frequent speed) to get home.
That's not even through-Europe crossing, rather a relatively small hop within south-western part of Europe. It was more expensive as flights too (but not that much, but then there was hotel). Any destination we went through for holidays in past few years are completely unreachable by trains, and the amount of hops (stress, delays, missed connections) is massive. Train networks have much more massive cascade issues with delays propagating like tsunami far and wide. Trains simply don't cover much apart from few very narrow cases in best possible situation globally. Everywhere else, train networks are much worse.
Also, the bike situation is much worse than in Europe. Here's how it works on Amtrak in my experience:
1. Show up to the train station with your bike.
2. In most places, get turned away because you were supposed to pay extra to reserve a bike spot in advance and now they're out of space because there are only like 4 spots in the whole train.
3. Assuming you planned ahead, remove your front wheel so you can hang the bike in a designated luggage rack, there is nowhere else you're allowed to put it. The train cars have not meaningfully changed in 100 years and are not tall enough to fit a bike with the front wheel attached. Seriously, go to the Smithsonian African American History Museum and look at their train car from the 40s, the interior is almost the same as a modern car.
4. Cringe as the train car sways and your bike's front fork repeatedly slams into the wall.
5. At your stop, the conductor starts letting people on before you've unhooked your bike so now you need to fight your way down the aisle against the current of people while holding your partially disassembled bike and bag so you can get off before the doors close.
That said I take Amtrak over a plane every chance I get, I will pay more for it, and I really really wish we had more trains here. I have taken a 48 hour train from Boston to Denver before instead of flying and I'd do it again, even if I can't convince anyone else to do it with me.
- show up with 5 people and bikes 30 minutes before the train leaves with no reservation. They see that we have more bikes than the standard 4 on the train and hook up a special bike storage car with ~50 bike racks that require nothing more than hanging your bike on it.
- get on train.
- get off at destination and go to bike car where they give you your bikes and off you ride.
Not to say thats every time I’ve ridden a train with a bike but its happened more than once.
What you inadvertently described
For parts 1,2 and 4 and possibly 5 is the user experience in Germany for the high speed rail which if you want to get around Germany in an efficient manner is the only rail option.
Mind blowing considering how bicycle friendly it proclaims itself to be.
I think of driving as near constantly dealing with people. They're around you the whole time, more or less aggressive, skilled and less skilled, and more or less caring about their own life while operating their own deadly machine.
Traffic is like riding the train but everyone's got a gun pointed at each other
I don't get any control over my schedule when driving long distance. I have to drive. A constant focus on keeping myselr alive. If I was on a train I could read, code, play games, or do whatever I felt like.
In Spain taking a train costs much more than taking a plane. Take all the “here in the eu” comments as what they are: anecdotes of a certain country or plain propaganda.
Most of the exemptions are for e.g taxes on fuel, or land taxes for airports etc. Taxing flights the same way e.g cars are taxed would make trains more competitive, but wouldn't really lower the price for trains. In many places train infrastructure is also heavily subsidised.
The sad reality is that air travel has much lower cost for fixed infrastructure (≈ airports) compared to trains, per passenger km. If we build an airport, an airline can more or less just fly wherever from that airport. If someone wants to fly 2 hours west to a large city, and others would like to fly 2 hours south, they can just do that without really impacting the other (except for taking up slot times).
With trains every single km of track you lay can only be used going in that direction (duh), and needs to be maintained year around. You have expensive tunnels, bridges and "advanced" control systems and infra all along the track. To extend the rail network to another city is an enormous up-front const, and only "unlocks" one new city (or direction). A (large) airport can be used to go both 45 minutes away on domestic flight or half across the globe.
Tracks form a network that can be used to reach more than just the directly connected cities.
Similarly, airports require a high up front capital cost and form a network that allows you to reach further than the infrastructure at the starting point allows.
On rail having high maintenance cost for the infrastructure: every flight requires expensive and fragile planes + lots of fuel, so the marginal cost of each trip is high.
So it's a little more complicated to compare the costs than you suggest.
it wasn't a discussion about price. It was about the service that is offered
Price attracts new customers, quality loyalises them
(Its a quote from a local rapper. Not train related, but it applies to any business)
Bus is dirt cheap and ok for some trips.
Plane is a bit more expensive.
but I'm still willing to take the train (first class) for the extra convenience, especialy when I cross the country several times over a weekend.
Also, plane is only kinda cheap when you book it a long time ago and for peculiar hours and dates.
It gets really expensive last minute or on days when demand increases, while train companies can just scale up the number of seats by using more carriages
Los Angeles to New York is 2800 miles. That's about the same distance as from Lisbon to Moscow. That trip if done entirely by train takes 4 days, according to Google.
That's a terrible excuse. Most flights in the US aren't to cross coast to coast. If you take the top 10 most used flight routes in the US:
LAS-LAX Las Vegas - Los Angeles 286,262 - Take a damn train
HNL-OGG Honolulu - Kahului 281,548 - Maybe don't take a train for that one unless you want to dig a tunnel.
JFK-LAX New York JFK - Los Angeles 274,909 - Alright, plane is useful
LGA-ORD New York La Guardia - Chicago O'Hare 263,499 - Take a damn train
DEN-LAS Denver - Las Vegas 253,959 - Take a damn train
LAX-SFO Los Angeles - San Francisco 247,571 - Take a damn train
ATL-MCO Atlanta - Orlando 239,281 - Take a damn train
LAX-ORD Los Angeles - Chicago O'Hare 231,252 - Flight
DEN-PHX Denver - Phoenix 226,666 - Take a damn train
JFK-SFO New York JFK - San Francisco 215,323 - Flight
Most of your busiest routes could easily be done by train, and even land right in the city instead of being in the middle of nowhere when you land. And that's the busiest routes! Most lesser used flights will be for cities close to one another. Being in a train also lets you work, use your laptop, have internet, get up and walk, grab (overpriced) food in a bar wagon, have a wagon for children to play in, etc. Trains are just better.
So, no, you can't use the "but the US is big" argument every time, sorry.
Many of those "take a train" routes aren't really your destination, though.
For example, practically everything involving LAS is connecting to something else which goes further. Orlando is probably the terminus thanks to Disney, but ATL is likely not the originator.
Probably the only route which definitely isn't a hub connector is LAX-SFO as both LAX and SFO are already hubs in and unto themselves. Maybe, LGA-ORD also falls into a similar category.
Amtrak is supposed to get first priority, but lines are still owned by freight companies who culled many passenger-heavy lines for "efficiency" and run extremely long trains that clog up traffic for hours, again for some spreadsheet-worthy target metric of "efficiency".
Here's a video from Wendover Productions about the laws surrounding ownership vs control:
> I feel like airlines don't want you to check in bags because they say it's premium, and _good_ passengers don't need them.
I hope/wish this isn't their motivation. I think people that take suitcases as carry-on are one of the biggest annoyances of flying domestically in the US. Delays everyone getting on and off the plane and leaves no space for items people genuinely need on the plane.
> I think people that take suitcases as carry-on are one of the biggest annoyances of flying domestically in the US. Delays everyone getting on and off the plane and leaves no space for items people genuinely need on the plane.
I imagine you're a casual flyer? As someone who has traveled a lot for work I can't agree. I'm someone who needs to move from A->B quickly and can't be bothered worrying about luggage being lost or dealing with delays at the carrousel.
> Delays everyone getting on and off the plane and leaves no space for items people genuinely need on the plane.
Like what? If it's your laptop/similar it can be in a backpack/small bag under the seat. If it's a jacket it can rest behind you on the seat or if you have a bit of space in your bag (under seat or overhead luggage) toss it in there prior to boarding, it's what I always did.
I do wish more people would use soft sided luggage rather than roll-aboards which disproportionately consume overhead space for the most part. But, in general, I agree. I pack light and only check luggage when I have to--e.g. gear for outdoor activities.
So you, as an important businessman, are deserving of the overhead luggage space, but the casual riff-raff should stuff their belongings around their feet?
There obviously isn't enough space on the plane for every passenger to take a max-size carry-on suitcase. Therefore, anyone taking one is using more than their fair share, and they should be the ones accommodating the other passengers -- yet it's usually the opposite . These people are usually the ones rushing to board first and taking longer to arrange the luggage. I agree with the GP that these people are the most annoying feature of short-haul flights.
> So you, as an important businessman, are deserving of the overhead luggage space, but the casual riff-raff should stuff their belongings around their feet?
lol what? where does he say anything about needing special treatment? everyone's in the same overhead bin lottery unless you paid for business class or whatever.
i do exactly what the parent comment said as well. you're allowed a carryon and a small backpack. you put the carryon overhead and stuff your backpack at your feet. you either sit on your jacket or stuff it in your bag before you board. important stuff (work laptop, house keys) stays in the backpack and always with you. sometimes they force you to gate check your bag, which is not ideal but fine. keep the backpack.
i traveled a medium amount for work and ended up getting a soft sided duffel. for full flights they start calling for gate checking carryons before they even start boarding. i think this is mostly to save time though, even if there was enough overhead space. i noticed you get preferential treatment with a duffel and several times where they'd let me through but make the person in front of or behind me gate check their bags if they were rollers, even though the bins were "full".
if work was paying i tried to only book direct flights. then i could gate check my bag, board last, and spend as little time crammed on the plane as possible. but my preference was to do carryon as well to save time, especially if there was a connection.
Carry-on is more pleasant for the individual in many cases, as the risk of loss is zero and you don't need to wait at baggage claim.
But when everybody does it is sucks. Boarding and deboarding takes way longer. Overhead space consistently runs out and requires people to check bags anyway.
A friend had to put their carry on away from their seat, and someone else took it (by accident), but by the time my acquaintence’s turn came to get their bag, the other person was so far ahead of them, my friend was unable to catch up to them before they left the airport.
They got it back, but now I keep an eye on my carry on, especially when deboarding. And also have a unique, hard to miss tag on it.
Boarding and deboarding time doesn't matter much though. If you've got a fast deboarding time because your bag is checked, you're still going to be waiting longer before you leave the airport to find your bag/for it to drop out of the chute.
Now, yes. I used to travel a lot for work and held the same opinion then. But my speed requirements must have been different I guess.
Items people genuinely need in the cabin are items they will use whilst in the cabin. It'd be nice if nobody had to have their laptop bag or kids essentials on top of their feet.
To be fair you only hear about it when there's a problem. I'm not a frequent flier, but on the dozens of flights I've taken over the course of my life I've never lost a bag. That said, your odds vary wildly by both airline and airports involved.
https://www.price4limo.com/lost-luggage.html
I used to travel a lot and lost, delayed, and damaged luggage was a recurring problem. In one case we had to pay a local expediter to go get our stuff.
I am a frequent flyer. When traveling by myself, I don't check. When traveling with my family, I do check. In the past 10 years, at least five times we've had bags delayed more than 48 hours.
Like the linked article, I also had a bag lost returning from honeymoon. That bag was never returned. It took me more than a year to get the airline to provide any compensation. (SDR 1,500) SDR = "Special Drawing Right, roughly $1,300 at today's conversion rate.
I'm an extremely frequent flyer and I've only ever had bags delayed due to reasons I find completely understandable.
One such case was a connection through Houston where there was a huge electrical storm that delayed flights and forced ramp crew indoors for their protection. After the storm passed the decision was made to get the passengers out even if their bags were late. My bag was delivered to my hotel the following day.
Other cases have been extremely tight connections (that I have willingly chosen to book, against my better judgement) where there is barely enough time to get ME to the connection much less a bag buried in a hold somewhere.
From your link, the success rate for bag transportation ranges from 99.85% to 99.07%.
I honestly don't know how much better it can get.
There must be something going on that people have a perception that bag loss is common, because I take 30-50 trips per year, almost all of them through Chicago (which has a reputation) and almost all of them 2 legs, which is 160 loading operations per year (~40 trips, two legs each, round trip) and no unexplained bag losses or delays.
Is there a specific mode of air travel, like the crazy weird itineraries that people come up with to save $60 on airfare? Or weird, oddly-shaped, hard-to-handle bags? (I've seen taped-up coolers and trash bags used as checked luggage)
Broken luggage? That's a different story. Airlines have broken so many of my suitcases that I now transport my dirty laundry home in a Pelican Air 1615.
(edit: and they're doing their best to break that-- good luck!)
Airlines don’t want you checking bags for at least two reasons:
1) For every bag that’s carry-on is one that a baggage handler doesn’t have to deal with (as well as reducing risks of losing it and all those logistics), so they can reduce the number of people they need to pay.
2) Unused overhead space is wasted space. They’re spending a huge amount of fuel to transport X cubic feet of space from one place to another. If the overheads are half empty, that’s wasted space. They want all the overhead space to be used so they have more space available in the hold.
That extra space in the hold is something they can sell. They can carry tons of FedEx envelopes, Amazon packages, etc. as cargo, and of course they can make more money from that than if they used the space for passengers who already paid for the space in the cabin.
People already bring their helper dogs on regular commercial airlines. I sat next to one (in the airport boarding lounge) on my last trip. So I assume the flight attendants just move people.
I don't disagree but at the same time, I'd like to know stats. Given just how much baggage air lines handle, it always seemed a miracle to me so much of it got where it needed. I will never put important stuff in checked luggage but how much of it is lost? 10%? 1%? 0.1%? How much of it delayed?
you forget who most of their flyers are. Frequent travelers for business. These customers almost always have just a carry on bag or small luggage, which fits in the cabin.
This trend may be changing post-covid (still remains to be seen).
Given train costs are on par with flying business class - you’d probably get similar attention to your bags.
Personally, having moved with 2 kids and ~8 pieces of baggage to and from Europe recently (and getting priority treatment about 60% of time)… I don’t wanna see a suitcase in my life ever again.
That is incorrect.
The "delayed baggage" compensation is separate from the "lost baggage" compensation. The couple got the "lost baggage compensation".
Is there any evidence of this? The article states the couple was compensated for 25% of the value of the luggage, whereas the passenger's bill of rights seems to say that the airline is liable for the full value of the lost luggage, up to a limit. Further, the article states that the terms of the compensation made no mention of this being a transfer of ownership to the airline.
What's the basis for asserting it was lost baggage compensation?
A shirt you paid $100 three years ago is not valued at $100 now. They don’t give you $100 for it but value of a comparable one from a second hand store.
This is similar to how car insurance or home content insurance works. Most people think the value of something for insurance or compensation is the price they paid, which is wrong. The value is the price currently of a comparable item for sale.
If the car you paid $50K for 8 years ago gets stolen, they don't give you $50K for it but instead the price of comparable 8 year old car.
Same thing with home insurance. If someone comes in and steals your MacBook Pro which you paid $5000 for 8 years ago, they don't give you $5000. They find out how much a similar MacBook Pro sells for on ebay, etc and give you that.
The article states the couple was compensated for 25% of the value of the luggage, whereas the passenger's bill of rights seems to say that the airline is liable for the full value of the lost luggage, up to a limit.
Which was submitted in response to your previous comment that The “delay bag” is only paid if it’s delayed. If it’s lost then it’s not paid and then “lost” is paid.
I am not interested in your exposition of how insurance works, which is a distraction from the simpler question of 'lost or delayed'. Out of courtesy, I think you should respond to that other poster's point instead of grinding your axe on mine.
Sure, depreciation is a thing. But I'm not sure how they arrive at 25% of the original value as being fair. It's not reasonable to assume that the average MacBook Pro is 8 years old.
Paying out 25% of the value is not a fair compensation when they're too lazy to retrieve a tracked bag.
Your car insurance works that way, in the sense that they generally have to pay you enough to replace the car like for like. A shirt is a bit different in that there is not a robust used shirt market where you can go out and buy a nearly exactly equivalent shirt. Given that, it seems reasonable that they would pay for the replacement via a similar new shirt.
Home insurance actually works _exactly_ this way. As long as you have a mortgage in the US, you're going to be required to carry enough insurance to pay for the full cost of completely rebuilding a similar brand new home in the event the home is destroyed.
Okay, that I'm less sure on the car insurance, but again theft of belongings from your home is absolutely something that can be covered by home owner's or renter's insurance.
Yes, its covered by the home owner's or renter's insurance. The issue is most people don't understand the value of an item.
Let say you buy brand new MacBook Pro for $5000 in 2016. Someone breaks into your home and steals it. Most people when they file the insurance claim thinks the value of the MacBook Pro is $5000 (what they paid for it), but that's not true. The value is the price of a similar 2016 era MacBook Pro on second hand market places (ebay, etc). So lets say that 2016 MacBook Pro similar to yours is selling for $800 on ebay, insurance will compensate you $800.
Most insurers in the US offer a choice between actual cash value (ACV) or replacement cost value (RCV) coverage. You are describing ACV. Premiums are higher for RVC coverage but usually not a lot higher.
With RCV coverage they will pay for a new MacBook Pro with similar RAM and storage and screen.
I’d guess that most people on HN go for RCV on their homeowners’ insurance. I remember once looking into how much I would save if I switch the personal property coverage of my homeowner’s policy from RCV to ACV and while I don’t remember the amount I remember my reaction was “it’s that little!?” and I kept it RCV.
> The status of the bag is iffy once compensation is paid.
This is at least partially addressed in the article.
> “So I looked into the terms and conditions to see if me accepting compensation changed over ownership to Air Canada, and there’s nothing,” she said, adding that their bag has been “wrongfully donated.”
I think this is reasonable. Just because the airline paid compensation doesn't mean they can donate bags that they don't own. At the very least, they should have some kind of publicly accessible database to list these for a while before donation.
If they knew they had a lost bag it shouldn't have been donated at all.
In no scenario does donating bags that they have misplaced make sense, should be enough data on the luggage to know who it belongs to and at least ask them to collect it or offer to post it.
Yes, exactly. Major airlines are going to accumulate a sizeable number of bags which can't be matched to their owner with detective work that is going to cost more than the bags are worth. And they can't store bags forever waiting in case the owners use their own detection mechanisms. Paying compensation and donating the bags seems fine, as long as the compensation is reasonable.
Have a website with photographs/info of found bags and where they were found, which gives you a decent guess about where they were lost. IF you lose a bag, you submit a description of bag type/color and you get and email showing the most likely candidates to be your bag.
Since we're not lawyers, let's forget the legalities and just talk about what's fair.
It seems terrible that people should be forced to sell their luggage to an airline... because the airline lost it.
At the time the airline offers compensation, the choice is between nothing and whatever the airline offers. That's can hardly be considered a fair exchange of ownership. Obviously, it's built in to the situation that there is a low chance the luggage will be recovered.
I'd say if the luggage is recovered, the airline could request money back, minus an amount to compensate the travelers for the inconvenience and the temporary loss of the items. Consider, e.g., that they may have needed to replace some items on short notice. If the amount the airline paid is as small as is suggested here, it doesn't sound like they should get much of anything back. Note that the travelers recovered the luggage themselves.
I'm not familiar with the canadian banking system but it looks like the money was directly posted ("push") rather than provided in a way that required positive action on the part of the recipient.
Interac e-Transfer is Canada's funds transfer system that allows users to send money via email or text message. Upon receiving a fund transfer, receiving party would normally log into the bank account to receive the money. The receiving party also has the option to register their email/sms so that the money is deposited automatically, and this option touted as more secured in the event that the email is compromised.
Therefore, if the money was indeed sent through e-Transfer, then it is possible that the Couple received the compensation without any positive action. I am not sure if one could make the argument that the onus is on the Couple to actively reject the compensation and reverse the transfer.
The airline lost the bag. The customers entrusted it to them, and it's pretty clear the fault lies somewhere on the airline's side.
Devil's advocate: The airline doesn't have access to the tracking data that the customer did. It's one of hundreds of bags they can't find owners for. Donating them doesn't seem like too bad of an option, provided they still make the customer whole.
Would be nice if airtags were built with a standard for delegating tag locations to companies as an enterprise offering.
Bag lost? Just share the tag location with a ticket-specific email generated by the booking system, and some division of luggage services at the airline has the job description of delegating the finding of the luggage based on that data.
Well, many/most airlines already have bar code tracking. I can look in my United app and see where my bag was last scanned. That said, I do throw an AirTag in as backup on the rare occasions I check a bag.
> The airline doesn't have access to the tracking data that the customer did.
If that's the case, the customers could have done better. Last year I had a delayed baggage with TAP Portugal. My suitcase stayed in Lisbon and never arrived with me in Brazil. I had an AirTag in it. I sent daily emails to TAP with screenshots of FindMy showing that my bag was within a specific area of the Lisbon airport.
> It's one of hundreds of bags they can't find owners for.
They can certainly do better if that's the case. The bag has a tag with a number and a barcode. Those should point to a specific customer. The customer has already complained about the lost bag. The system should be able to match those 2 ends easily.
> Donating them doesn't seem like too bad of an option, provided they still make the customer whole.
Often getting money doesn't make the customer whole. There are personal items in a bag. There are special gift pieces of clothing. There might be mementos from the trip. There could be other items and artefacts that are irreplaceable to the customer. Money only makes it less bad but it will never completely compensate for the loss of those things.
they often only attach one barcode to the bag. (the one around the handle)
These can get caught on things and detach occasionally. It's rare enough that it will probably never happen to you in your lifetime but common enough that it happens to many people every day.
given that over 13 million trips were taken on air canada alone even if they lost 1 in every 1000 bags (assuming roughly 1 bag per passenger which may not be accurate) then there would be 13,000 bags lost every year
They usually attach a barcode wrapped around a handle AND a sticker placed somewhere else as a backup.
The warehouse had thousands of bags, it would be an unprecedented number of bags to have both lost their bag tags, the backup sticker, AND did not have an additional personal tag attached.
Donating an unclaimed bag is maybe an option (if the recipient is legally required to destroy all personal data). Donating a bag that your passenger has filed a claim for, and can tell you the location of, is a business decision. The penalty in this situation should be so obscenely high as to make it irrational for the airline to consider it.
Merely compensating for damages implies the bag was lost in good faith. I can't just steal your car and pay you fair market value for it without your agreement.
>Donating a bag that your passenger has filed a claim for, and can tell you the location of, is a business decision.
It's not clear the airline could really determine which bag it was. I imagine these lost baggage centers have a very large amount of bags. Finding it is a needle in a hackstack problem under the likely assumption that the bag is lost because the airline paper tag was missing or unreadable.
There aren't enough facts to determine any active choice was made here. The airline should pay for the bag, but nothing seem malicious here.
You can use Find My to isolate the bag. It'll lead you to the general direction, you can pull the bag from the bunch based on a passenger description, and then you can just walk it away from the rest to see if it is correct.
Like rhino said above, in all likelyhood the label on the bag was most likely ripped (or it wouldn't be lost in the first place). And trying to describe a bag is... challenging.
That seems like a business decision to use poor labeling and likely negligent,
They should be required to show some good faith effort that their labelling system is design to be reliable instead of the cheapest possible, and also show they have made a good faith effort to return the mound of lost bags.
When the customer shows up at baggage claim and is able to point out on a map on their iPhone exactly where their bag is, they should be moving hell or high water to locate and return that bag.
Nothing about how the airline handled this is reasonable. The couple was tracking their bag as soon as it didn't show up at baggage claim. They knew exactly where it was when they filed the lost bag report. The airline actively ignored this information and spent weeks doing nothing meaningful about it before paying up for the lost bag.
What you describe is a reasonable outcome when the airline has no way of knowing where the bag went, but this simply was not the case here.
One probably doesn't need to be too generous with a devil's advocate:
There are two kinds of scannable identification placed on luggage.
The first is the more obvious loop tag, and the second are 2 secondary smaller barcode stickers, at least one of which is placed on the luggage directly in case the main tag is somehow removed.
Beyond that there are also the manual bag tags/slide-outs which most luggage still utilises, as well as the international bag-tracking service used by airlines. Additionally customers are instructed to describe their bag and contents as part of the lost bag process.
Because of this bags can be reunited with owners. The ones that are not seem to stem from staffing and procedural issues, which explains why some airlines are notorious for losing bags (e.g. AirEuropa.)
In too many cases already we see people who are able to locate their lost bag via an AirTag being ignored. AirTags also reveal that bags are often lost multiple times, such as when a person takes a holiday and their bags arrive well after they have left - complicating the recovery as the bag is now lost in a foreign airport and all recovery efforts are at arm's length.
AirTags and police are worthless. I had an AT on AirPods that dropped in my apt garage. I could see them move into a secured area that Google leased. Called the cops’ non-emergency number. “Sorry, we have a 2 day backlog” Then, I watched them leave the area, go on a highway, and arrive at a house in a residential area. The police there refused to do anything until the other police did something. It doesn’t matter if you know where your property is, people are allowed to steal it and get away with it.
Depends on where you are. In the UK I called the police in Bristol over a “stolen” iPhone. I said I had the Find my IPhone active.
They asked me for the login and they were going to use Find to get to the phone. I got there first and it turns out it was just lost. But I was surprised that they would use it.
If that's genuinely what they do, would be nice if Apple implemented a police version of 'Find my Friends' to let you give them permission to track the device rather than the password.
I'd definitely attribute this to ignorance rather than malice.
I doubt the police (the person, not the organisation) knows or cares what else can be done with the password, to them it's just the hoop they need to jump through to see what they need to see for the task at hand.
I wouldn't imagine they would have the organisational capability to misuse those passwords, other than the individual realising they could look through iCloud photos or something.
It's still bad, and Apple should implement a sharing or law enforcement mode for this case, but I doubt it's malicious at the state level.
The job of the police is at best to react late to a crime, shrug and say they can't do anything. At worst, well there's some footage about to be released of Tyre Nichols being beaten to death by multiple police officers ...
It is indeed the case in US. This is because we have way fewer cops than we should have relative to the amount of crime. We have 30-50% fewer cops per capita than France or Germany, but a big multiple of their crime rate. We have about as many cops per capita in Poland, and the crime rate in Poland is so low compared to US that when I grew up there, they would very much investigate and prosecute a lot of petty crime.
We have much fewer officers per capita than France or Germany, but these countries have much less crime than we do. Considering how much crime we have, we should have way more police than other countries, but it’s not the reality.
It is generally expected, and in fact almost always the case, that if you hire people to deal with a specific problem, hiring more of them will result in less of this problem, and conversely, hiring fewer will result in having more of that problem. At some point, of course, one would expect to see diminishing returns. However, it is beyond clear by looking at other similar countries, our past, recent evidence in police budget reductions etc., that we are nowhere near close to that.
Actually it appears that the more police you have the more misdemeanor arrests result, but this does not impact the clearance rate for violent felonies. In other words you get more hall monitors but not necessarily more detectives.
Only about 8% of US cities have reallocated police founding elsewhere; most have increased it since 2020, and in nearly half of jurisdictions it has risen by >10%.
> Actually it appears that the more police you have the more misdemeanor arrests result, but this does not impact the clearance rate for violent felonies.
I don't have access to this study, so I cannot really comment on it, but this is just one study. When you take the evidence as a whole, the picture is quite different. See for example this systematic review, which looked at 49 separate studies and it did find that, yes, "police presence has mostly crime reduction effects on crimes related to motor theft, property, violence and guns. Police presence also reduces calls for service and improves traffic behaviour".
Additionally, these misdemeanor arrests have been very useful in reducing violent crime rate in NYC. NYC cops under Giuliani and Bloomberg would harass people for trivial shit, find guns on them that they weren't allowed to possess, and then throw the book at them for it. This resulted in carrying a gun being too risky activity for NYC criminals, which resulted in great reduction in shootings, homicide, and other crime involving use of guns like robbery and carjacking. Now, of course, one might object to this strategy, based on morality or legality of it, but what you cannot object to is whether it worked, because it clearly did. This is my point: police activity reduces crime.
> Only about 8% of US cities have reallocated police founding elsewhere; most have increased it since 2020, and in nearly half of jurisdictions it has risen by >10%.
Given that inflation since 2020 has been over 10%, that means that more than half of jurisdiction did cut police funding in real terms.
And Russia and Costa Rica indeed have crime rates similar to ours. Rather more importantly than spend, though, is how much we actually get for it. Seems like policing is another one of those fields, like medicine and education, where we spend more than other countries as a percentage of GDP, but get less value for the spend. This is why I'm talking about actual metrics like police officers per capita, not dollars spent on policing.
> The systematic search strategies yielded 49 studies focusing on testing the effects of police presence or evaluating its measurement. We find evidence that police presence has mostly crime reduction effects on crimes related to motor theft, property, violence and guns. Police presence also reduces calls for service and improves traffic behaviour. Police presence focused on specific areas, times and types of crime achieves maximum effectiveness. The reviewed studies show a high degree of heterogeneity in reporting which limits comparability of findings across studies. Research on police presence presents evidence for significant crime preventative effects of focused police actions and shows strongest effects when focused on certain areas, times, or types of crimes
Look at the 49 studies they went through. Most of them show that adding officers lowers crime. Now you have seen the data.
And many of the officers we do have are woefully under-trained, and lack the strict psychological screening required in other parts of the world. This can likely be pinned on the fact that we under-pay our police, selecting for candidates who have alternative motives.
Whether we need more policing is a lot more complicated than just looking at crime rates. Firstly because this can only represent reported crime, and a lot of crime is not reported. And secondly because there are absolutely detrimental effects of policing, and this would lead into a conversation more about what the goals of policing should be. Do we care about slightly and temporarily reducing crime rates if we're also drastically increasing the amount of people getting displaced from their homes for bullshit reasons and placing massive burdens on their families as a result? Does incarcerating people too much lead to higher crime rates in the future when they're released? There's a ton of negative secondary effects.
If you look at the most apples-to-apples comparison of crime rate between the countries, the homicide rate, it is beyond clear that the disparity between US and Europe is very much real, and not just an artifact of differing reporting rates. France or Germany very much do not have issues with underreporting homicides. You would have to have something like 2-3 unreported homicides for every reported homicide in Germany to equalize the homicide rates. It is abundantly clear that this is not the case.
Now, given that the homicide rate gap is real and not just reporting artifact, what about other crime? It stands to reason that the disparities there are also real, but there still might be differences in reporting, which could either exaggerate or diminish the reported gap. Which is it?
In my view, the latter is true: the gap between US and Europe is even worse than it seems. This whole thread is a great example: Americans don’t even bother reporting a lot of crime, because it is a common knowledge that it won’t do much. In Europe, people report much more petty crime, because the cops will actually follow up on a lot of it, and the justice system will actually punish the offenders. This means that the real crime gap is even bigger than the reported one.
This is also clear to anyone who actually has experience living in both places. I grew up in Poland, I live in relatively safe US city (Seattle), and the amount of crime I observe here is probably a whole order of magnitude higher than I did back in Poland.
> And secondly because there are absolutely detrimental effects of policing, and this would lead into a conversation more about what the goals of policing should be
Yes, I agree that there is a trade off here. However, in US, the balance is completely lopsided towards the costs of crime. Criminals impose massive burden on everyone around them, including their families. Crime has enormous costs to victims, but also huge negative externalities. For example, if you own a house in a crime ridden neighborhood, then even if you are never a victim of crime yourself, just the fact that people avoid your neighborhood costs you probably tens of thousands of dollars in terms of lost property values. Businesses avoid crime ridden locations, resulting in fewer jobs and services for residents. Really, the negatives of increased policing would have to be quite enormous to make up for the benefits.
For a real world example, look at how much more flourishing NYC has become after Giuliani and Bloomberg cleaned it up. Do you thing that NYC residents would prefer to go back to 1985 era?
> Does incarcerating people too much lead to higher crime rates in the future when they're released?
Compared to what? Even if you ignore deterrence role, incarceration reduces crime purely by incapacitating criminal’s ability to do crime. Hard to victimize people when you’re locked up.
Crime is young men’s game, and most of it is committed by very small fraction of population. They commit most of their crime between 16 and 35, with crime activity sharply tapering thereafter. If you incarcerate those repeat offenders for many years, and release them only once they are older and cooled off, than increase in criminality induced by incarceration will be more than made up by reduction in criminality during prime crime years.
We need to incarcerate more people, and do it for longer. That’s exactly how we achieved long decrease in crime, starting in mid 90s. People understood that. Senator Joe Biden was major sponsor of crime reform bill that was designed to do exactly that, put more criminals in jail for longer. It’s a shame that we were made to forget that, and now we reap the fruit of reduced policing and increased criminal exuberance, with crime rates hugely spiking starting from June 2020.
> We need to incarcerate more people, and do it for longer
I cannot respect this claim at all. Incarceration destroys lives when it overwhelmingly doesn't need to happen. Taking away the most formative years of someone's life and then releasing them into society after endless years of inhumane treatment with no meaningful income or resources is absolutely not a net positive for society. Throwing people in prison only worsens the problems of poverty and systemic racism which leads to further crime.
There are a lot of factors that went into crime decreases in the 90s, and it was happening before the crime bill. The crime bill was awful to the point that Biden himself called it a big mistake.
What about victims of crime, do you care about them at all, or only about the criminals? Neither in this nor in your previous comment you ever mentioned them, you only talk about how policing damages the lives of criminals.
Look, I simply do not care much about well-being of repeat offenders. If someone is getting convicted for their third felony, then given the reporting, clearance and conviction rates, it is highly likely that this is more like 10th-20th felony he committed, not 3rd. This means that he victimized a lot of people, and if we let him out, he'll likely victimize many more. Why don't you think about the well being of the victims, instead of that of the criminal? They typically cannot do much to avoid being victimized, whereas for the criminal, it is very easy to avoid jail: all he needs to do is to not commit crime. Overwhelming majority of people, including some very poor ones, manage to do it. If you don't want to waste your youth in jail, stop committing crime, what is the problem with this message?
> What about victims of crime, do you care about them at all, or only about the criminals? Neither in this nor in your previous comment you ever mentioned them, you only talk about how policing damages the lives of criminals.
Yes, I do, and I think we are creating more victims of crime over the long term with with our current approach to incarceration.
> I simply do not care much about well-being of repeat offenders
I really hope you have the opportunity to meet and spend time with people who have done significant time in prison. There are some absolute shit people in prison, but the vast majority of them are really well-meaning, well-intentioned, loving human beings who've made mistakes. People who have committed crimes aren't intentionally trying to create victims in the vast majority of cases. They're making poor decisions or finding themselves in poor situations that result in victims. And in a massive amount of cases, there's no victim at all (thanks war on drugs).
People find themselves in difficult places in life. Likely difficult ways you've never dreamed of. People get desperate. People get to the end of their rope. People lack support systems. People are the product of inter-generational poverty and struggling in large part due to, you guessed it, the massive scale of incarceration in this country. People are responsible for their actions. But given a lot of circumstances, I understand why they made the choices they did, even if someone else got hurt as a result. It doesn't justify it, but it's understandable.
These are real human beings and it's really sad to hear you don't care about the well-being of fellow humans.
> Yes, I do, and I think we are creating more victims of crime over the long term with with our current approach to incarceration
I think you are very wrong here, but I don’t think that there is anything at all that could possibly convince you otherwise.
> I really hope you have the opportunity to meet and spend time with people who have done significant time in prison. There are some absolute shit people in prison, but the vast majority of them are really well-meaning, well-intentioned, loving human beings who've made mistakes.
The only people I know who have been in prison are members of my extended family, who I would by no means describe as well-meaning, well intentioned, loving human beings. So no, I don’t find very convincing.
But, even granting this, if someone is found by the justice system to have committed a serious, felony-level “mistake” three separate times (which in practice means he committed this “mistake” many more times, given the gaps in detection and conviction rates), it is beside the point whether they were “well-intentioned”: if they repeatedly keep “finding themselves in poor situations that result in victims”, we need to prevent them from creating any more victims, and prison is extremely effective at this job.
> People are the product of inter-generational poverty and struggling in large part due to, you guessed it, the massive scale of incarceration in this country.
In huge swaths of the world, poverty is much, much higher than in poorest places in America, but crime is relatively nonexistent. Consider, for example, Bangladesh, where average income is less than what you get in US from food stamps alone, but homicide rate is less than half of US. Even in US, huge majority of poor people do not commit crime. Being poor is extremely poor excuse for crime, when huge majority of the poor manages to avoid breaking into other people’s homes to steal their valuables, or beating other people to within an inch of their life.
> But given a lot of circumstances, I understand why they made the choices they did, even if someone else got hurt as a result. It doesn't justify it, but it's understandable.
In many cases I also do understand that, but it only makes me despise them even more. Overwhelming majority of people, including very poor and down-trodden people would not do the same thing in their shoes. However, in other cases I simply do not find any reasonable explanation whatsoever. The guy who threatened to beat me up as I was waiting for the bus has no reason to do it whatsoever, and he definitely did not appear loving and well intentioned.
> These are real human beings and it's really sad to hear you don't care about the well-being of fellow humans.
Yes, I do not care about the well being of some fellow humans, if they committed acts which clearly and unequivocally proved them not deserving of being treated charitably, and who by those acts destroyed well being of many other people. Crime is really heinous thing, and its damaging impact on victims is really understated. You asked me to meet and spend time with crime perpetrators. I ask you in return to spend time with crime victims instead. It appears to me that you care much less about them than about people victimizing them.
Unfortunately bagages losses are regulated - in europe - so compensation amounts are already limited (few 100, at best it compensate your suitcase). You need to take insurance and make a video before you pack as proof if you want a solution. Other than this you should assume all the time you luggage is lost.
compensation requirement in europe (and other international flights)is 1300 euros per passenger. Most of us don't have more than 1300 euros worth of stuff in a checked bag. Insurance is a good idea however as dealing with them is usually much quicker than dealing with the airline.
in the USA the number is $3800 for domestic flights
Great idea. And I get a Notification prompt that says "XYZ Corp would like to view MyName's AirTag location until Jan 27 @ 9pm" and I can choose to deny, or decrease/increase the time. Can remove them any moment, like when I receive the luggage.
I guess you could make it opt-in at the point that you load the e-tickets into the wallet.
Even if Apple didn't charge directly for it (and they could charge the Airlines to cut down on lost baggage) they'd get a boost in sales of the AirTags.
This was my first thought too. Delta (or whoever) can provide you a $50 "Delta Tag" and partner with Apple to have access to the tracking data on that tag for the times around your flight. Combine it with a slip of paper actually placed inside the luggage (to prevent issues with external labels getting destroyed).
If you surround an iPhone with 50 or 100 airtags (or any find-my enabled device), will that drastically reduce the battery of the phone as it is periodically pinging each of them?
After a long conversation I had at a music festival with a guy who works luggage at the local international airport I'm frankly blown away any bags ever make it to their destination.
I know we all concentrate on the failures in the system like this but the logistics involved in getting bags off a plane then delivered to dozens of different connecting flights while the same thing happens on dozens of other planes as well as adhoc "checked at the gate" bags getting added in with everything being correctly sorted, grouped, and transported 99% of the time, often with less than an hour to do it, is kind of amazing.
The logistics of FedEx overnight service are similar, and even more complicated in some respects: A package enters the system from any of bajillions of locations around the country/world (many more than there are airports), including FedEx stores, residential homes, major businesses, and random convenience store parters. The package makes at least half a dozen stops with incredibly tight connection times, traveling by land and air. Sometime deliveries are canceled or re-directed while en route.
Yet FedEx seems to have a way lower rate of missing packages.
AirTags have to be every airline's worth nightmare. When they were first announced, my first thought was "I'm going to put one in my luggage!". It has suddenly become impossible for them to pretend they don't know where your bags are. They've lost all plausible deniability, making them look that much worse when something crappy like this happens.
While I personally have never had a bad luggage experience, I've heard countless horror stories. Being able to watch my bag move around the airport and eventually board my plane provides a lot of peace of mind.
For US domestic travelers, check a firearm and see how much more attention is paid to your luggage. Some airports will have someone come out at baggage claim with your bag/firearm case and check your ID before handing it over.
It seems super messed up that they would donate your bag and all its sometimes extremely personal contents instead of disposing of it properly. What if I had a hard drive full of sensitive documents? Or my bitcoin wallet? Or a diary of my deepest thoughts? I've worked closely with Goodwill and I know it's very common for people who handle bulk donations like this to skim a bit when they find good stuff. I don't blame them, but it's irresponsible to have lost bags go to donation by default.
It is super messed up but also at par with the quality of businesses and services in Canada. It is extremely mediocre and getting worse every year. Zero innovation, application, ambition or energy in the country.
Young and naive with airline travel, my wife lost her childhood bear when the airline lost our luggage, and we arrived in another country with nothing. Decades on and long divorced, I still get multiple punches in the gut and attacks of tears when I'm reminded of her broken-hearted lament.
256 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 315 ms ] threadOnce the bags are recorded with baggage service and they've been in the federated database for so long, if the owners do not claim, the contents are donated where appropriate.
The bags themselves sometimes are set aside as ad hoc replacements for anyone who has a bag badly damaged in handling or other mishap.
When its donated the charity, there is an agreement that the charity will remove any PII or personalized stuff before selling the rest.
They certainly do not want to do so, but the capability existed and they declined to exercise it.
Once the owner’s put it in Lost Mode, which all of those beeping bags were in, then you just visit the link it gives you when you scan it (it can do NFC, it doesn’t even require an Apple device) and the owner’s contact information is shown.
The airline’s behavior instead resembles: “We couldn’t see any contact information in the outside and maybe we checked a zipper pocket for a piece of paper but ultimately we would rather give up and pay you a lost bag fee, than have to employ a human being to put more than thirty seconds of effort into each bag.”
Sure, why not? Let them in and have staff on hand with them requiring them to prove ownership by identifying the contents. Would that cost a lot to the airline? You bet, which is why they don't make the effort. But airlines never make an effort to help passengers unless the government tells them they must. So either make it mandatory or impose punitive damages when airlines lose bags (far above the cost of the luggage).
Maybe the airline would make an honest effort not to lose baggage if they were actually held accountable.
Yes. Especially when you can make your bag beep by tapping a button on your phone.
When you grab a bag from baggage claim, nobody cross-checks your ID against the bag. We already trust people not to steal. If you steal from a warehouse, the same thing would happen as if you stole from a baggage claim.
Take a photo of yourself, the bag, and visible luggage tag prior to checking it in.
From the perspective of the airline they were unclaimed — likely the tags had torn off and the airline had no idea who to connect the bag to.
Maybe it would be a nice service to incorporate AirTag tracing for unclaimed luggage, especially if the tracing was based on a standard and not specific to a single luxury brand. But regardless that would be a new SOP and isn’t part of the current one.
How did you reach the conclusion that it's "likely" the tags had torn off?
I don't think any of your assumptions are founded. If the airline decides the cost to pay out is cheaper than the cost to return, then paying out would be a totally reasonable business decision. Frankly without any more detailed (internal) information, I don't think you should presume such things.
Anyway like I said all of this is speculative. But I find it interesting that you and I have such diametrically opposed viewpoints when it comes to this.
The bag was lost for 9 days, with zero updates on the tracing report. The last update was in the connecting airport. We managed to find it, sitting placed at the destination airport with a few hundred other bags, tags were 100% fine on our bags and the others. At any point someone could have walked through, scanned the bags, and updated the tracing reports. But nobody did.
This isn’t because the tags were ripped off, it’s because it’s Air Canada’s SOP.
In Europe, you show up into a train station, handle your bikes or precious bag yourself, get in your train, and step out to leave the station immediately.
To anyone in the airline industry : the bad user experience with bags doesn't encourage me to carry bags in the cabin. It makes me get buses or trains whenever I have stuff with me.
This should be a reminder that _users_ know best, not management. They have _needs_ not because they're picky, and won't adapt to your service. They will get an service to match their needs.
I feel like airlines don't want you to check in bags because they say it's premium, and _good_ passengers don't need them. Well, if your feature is 'premium', you don't develop it it to offer a satisfying user experience.
Bags should be on the MVP. You want bags and to get them bag, not just money. Or users move on to others company products.
The _lowest_ internationally accepted limit for high speed rail is 125mph.
Even if Beightline ever actually upgrades to 110mph that still won’t be real HSR.
They also have a real problem with Florida drivers being Florida drivers. True high speed rail is fully grade separated (no road crossings)
That said, this is their plan for the expansion to Orlando:
> Brightline will terminate at this station once the 170-mile (270 km) Orlando Extension track is built. Trains will run up to 125 mph (201 km/h) with a travel time of approximately three hours from Orlando's airport to Miami.
So even though there already is a sort of high speed rail between DC and Philly, I, as resident in the suburbs, would probably just drive unless work was paying for ubers on both ends. Even if Acela was a true HSP rail, that wouldn't really change my calculus.
So while there is a goldilocks zone where cars take too long and its too short for airplanes to be faster, it's probably not very viable.
If my circumstances were different, and that time was mostly recoverable as leisure then it's absolutely great advice, but it doesn't scale to every person.
You'd be much better off spending that money on local commuter rail, which is more or less a prerequisite for HSP to work anyway.
I live in a city with decent buses, 3 street train lines and a commuter rail, and use the street lines frequently. Unless your departure and destination are right on the train line, you're still looking at a 1 hour - 2 hour commute with possible missed connections every step of the way. To canvas the city thoroughly you would need buses or trains running every 10 minutes, on every 3rd or 5th block. They would also need to be preferable to the alternative (a personal vehicle with no disruptive passengers, controlled climate, that is available when and where you need it).
Do I love taking the train into the city center for a night on the town, or out to the airport to avoid parking? Absolutely. Will I sacrifice 3 hours out of my day just so that I can say I'm saving the planet? Probably not.
The only way it would work would be some giant weave pattern of train lines where 1 car continues on, one departs left, and one departs right every stop. The budget and logistics of that would make it prohibitively expensive and prone to failure. There are also loads of reasons why people can't take transit (kids, cargo, late night / early morning schedules) and if they're not 80% solved, it will never catch on in the states.
Such a disconnect.
If it was a 5 minute drive, in city, you could just walk there in 10.
Parent effectively said "not close". So you suggest a 1 hour drive, a 2 hour train, instead of a 90 minute drive?
(You also have to wait for the train to leave, wait for its stops along the way, and be there precisely on time (hence the wait at the start)).
I find so many of the comments boil down to "I live deep in a city, never drive, and am in an entirely different geopolitical environment, but I know what makes sense for you!
Having a system that takes people only from where they live to where they work is much more inconvenient when individual cars allow people to go from work to the kids’ sports game to Costco to a relatives house and then home.
But that model of public transit is not tenable outside of places with density like Manhattan. Even in New York City, all the public transit is mostly focused on getting people into and out of Manhattan, so people in outer boroughs like to have cars.
This is what a public transit map that would compete with the convenience of individual cars would look like:
https://www.tokyometro.jp/en/subwaymap/
Contrast with the best that the USA can do:
https://new.mta.info/map/5256
Not that Tokyo is perfect, but it still has a far greater radius that link with each other without going to the central district.
And my house is too expensive because I'm only 5 minute from the subway. The vast majority of people have to live further.
If I was going to downtown Philly, might be worth it. But if I wasn't, then driving would absolutely be a lot fast. Since I'd have to navigate the last miles there adding more time.
The ability to just leave whenever I want without having to connect a bunch of train rides is pretty valuable even if it took longer.
EDIT: and to make it clear, I'm not a suburanite who is allergic to public transport. Until a year ago, I lived in the city and didn't have a personal car. And even now, I'd take Acela to NYC rather than fly or drive. It just doesn't make sense for other stops on the way like Philly, Wilmington, Baltimore. And Boston would take too long on Acela, and I'd fly instead.
But... doing so requires driving an hour in basically the wrong direction to the suburban Amtrak station. And then it takes longer than driving directly would. The only reason I do it is that I hate driving into Manhattan and parking there. Whereas when I arrive by train I can just walk to my hotel.
And, yeah, for Boston to DC I'll typically fly. The train is viable and I've done it but it's a full day trip vs. a short flight. And one of the airports is right on the metro vs. the NYC airports which are not.
As of November 2022, the DC silver metro line now includes Dulles International (IAD). So both of the major airports are now directly connected.
https://www.wmata.com/rider-guide/silver-line-extension/Wash...
This is enabled by the fact that train stations have much more limited footprints, and that multiple train stations in a city do not get in each other’s way.
Heck in China many of the "small" cities on HSR lines are larger then Portland OR.
I definitely think that the markets would be far better doing along the coasts rather than connecting them, but I don't think there is zero market either.
If the train is an overnight with a bed, and goes midtown to midtown, I’d take it every time.
For as slow as such a train ride would be, it still seems implausibly fast. For example, flying from Seattle to Miami today takes less than 6 hours. If you laid a perfectly straight rail line all the way from Seattle to Miami, and ran a TGV along it at its top speed with no stops, it'd take more than 13 hours. And once you make the train case even slightly more realistic instead of using all of those best-case assumptions that are impossible in practice, you easily exceed 15 hours too.
As far as the ancillary logistics, less secondary infrastructure is needed meaning you don't have to go to a designated chunk of land the size of a midsized town that literally cannot be conveniently located, and you avoid the hassle associated with onboarding (read: the TSA). Luggage also doesn't seem to be nearly as much of a hassle for whatever reason. I'm not sure if this would carry over to true high-volume long distance trains, but at the very least the baggage problem is conceptually simpler than at an airport.
There are definitely downsides for the passenger, mostly the added time in transit, but in my experience this only matters is when you require quick turnaround and spontaneity in your travel — in which case you'd just take a plane. For a trip that is planned in advance, even a cross-country train trip can make sense, especially if you work on your computer/phone.
The main downside is that long-distance train travel requires a sleeper car and a roomette to be really viable in the general case, and this is hard to scale. This may be an unsolvable problem since it's just so much less space-efficient than row seats, but if it isn't I see no reason why long distance rail couldn't carve out a significant chunk of the cross-country market.
Is every track maintained every night? No. But:
* it is incredibly dangerous for a high speed train to collide with anything low speed (track maintenance vehicles, supplies, or workers). The rights of way are so constrained that there is no safe way to have them maintain only one track out of two, so they insist on total separation as a policy: https://international-railway-safety-council.com/wp-content/...
* the Shinkansen are a two track network without parallel lines of the same gauge, so any maintenance reroute would require changing to either a normal train or to a bus, making sleepers impossible to operate normally. Even if you could though, trains need regular schedules for both riders and employees, and using different reroutes every night would be a scheduling nightmare
Bullet trains (which we don't even have in the US) are around 100-200mph at best.
That's still a huge difference unfortunately, especially going 2500+ miles across the entire country.
Meanwhile, the fastest train in India averages under 60 mph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatimaan_Express
Train stations are often conveniently located in crowded downtowns. Airports are located some distance away.
Security is a lot more of a problem on planes because hijacking planes is a problem. Hijacking trains is pointless.
Yes the seats are obviously more comfy than plane (although one should compare with business class because it costs similar), but turbulence is not fair comparison.
The only real credible threat is mass violence against the passengers. That could just as easily occur in any crowed public space.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt16605106/
Not coincidentally, these are historically the most commonly used methods.
Boarding a passenger car from which it is hard to get to the engine where the engineer is driving the train is far less likely to be effective.
And security is not just about hijackings. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_...
No matter how many want to avoided crowded places, they are crowded because a lot of people are already there, and a lot of others would like to grow. And this is only possible if there actually are good ways to get there.
To serve a geographically spread out group, it is reasonable to build a a hub and spoke system. And the geographically convenient place to put the hub generally already has a city built there exactly because it is geographically convenient.
If I--and almost certainly many other people who don't live in the city--had to drive into and park in downtown Boston to take Amtrak it wouldn't remotely be a consideration. And, yes, there's commuter rail but now you're adding hours to traveling.
At that point I'm just driving into NY or maybe driving to a NY commuter rail station.
Okay, let's look at that bullet train. At best that's 200 mph. A trip from SF to NY is then going to be 12.85 hrs. Assuming we go in a perfectly straight line (trains can't do this) and no stops. We'll say 13 for ease. A nonstop flight (not hard to find) is about 5.5 hrs.
In both situations we're only considering the travel time of the vehicle and not including anything like layovers/stops or boarding and unboarding. These are not one or two hour differences in travel time and thus security would make the difference, there are over 7hrs difference! You could fly all the way back to SFO before that bullet train rider gets to NYC (you're already through security). (We're also assuming that as trains get more popular that similar security theater isn't also introduced)
Now I do think people would still take the train fwiw because even with a 7hr travel time takes up all your day and flying sucks. Plenty of people will make this trade as long as trains don't sardine pack like airlines do. But let's also not fool ourselves into thinking the times are roughly the same and that that train also isn't going to take closer to 16hrs to go across country. Which even means doubling the speed (400mph) still makes it slower than a plane with security check-ins.
Surely a US train could aim to be up there with the fastest?
Even with that boost though, your point remains.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/travel/article/worlds-fastest-trains...
Transcontinental bullet trains across North America are a total pipe dream just based on simple geography. But bullet trains should play a role in our regional transportation infrastructure.
Also note that while the Shanghai Maglev does have a maximum speed of 268mph it has an average speed of 139/155mph (different schedules = different speeds). We need to consider average when calculating travel times. You'll also note that on that CNN page that several of those trains have test runs that reach near 400mph! This is good for considering where we might be able to get with high levels of optimization but they do not reflect the reality of speeds that a passenger will actually experience. Considering the extrapolations we'd realistically need trains that could have max speeds above 600mph and sustained speeds (through quite windy areas and mountains mind you) of 400+mph.
I do think cross continental passenger trains can still have a market but I think more coastal focused lines will have substantially better markets and we shouldn't expect trans-continental train alternatives to planes being popular for quite some time. The coastal lines mostly make sense because the total times are still relatively short and we consider the convenience tradeoff more influential. I'm pretty sure that this trade-off is highly non-linear with respect to travel time (convenience weakly dominates in short transit but time strongly dominates on long hauls).
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34549637
I looked it up out of curiosity. To travel the length of Japan's bullet train network, which goes most of the length of the country, it takes 3 trains and 31 stops, for a total of just under 12 hours. A flight between the same locations is just over 3 and a half hours.
For those who want to look it up, these figures are for Kagoshima-Chuo Station to Shin-Hakodate Hokuto Station.
I can see how the train would be come out ahead for shorter distances, but I think this kind of trip is more reasonable of a comparison with the distance of flights that many Americans are taking.
Extrapolating from there your train would take 36hours.
How do you figure that? I'm thinking out loud here: If we use some real examples: I'm lucky in that most of my family lives near major travel hubs, so I can fly direct most of the time. However, they all live in various places along the east coast of the US whereas I'm on the west coast. My trip last summer to see one group of them represented a 3100 mile / 5000 kilometer journey.
The flight was 5 hours and 30 minutes. Let's add 2 hours of airport shenanigans to cover showing up ahead of boarding, handling bags, picking up luggage on the far side, etc. So 7 hours 30 minutes of travel (not counting commute to or from airport, but you'd have to get to your high speed rail station as well)
(as an addendum, I was able to take public transit on both sides - busses & BART on the bay area side, and a local commuter rail on the far side. I had to get picked up by car from the train station though, no busses in that town)
The fastest Japanese and European high speed trains go 300 km/hr. That's 16 and a half hours of rolling at top speed - no stops, slowdowns, sharing slower track, etc. If you stop at major cities along the way (say one stop per US state), you're probably looking at 20 hours of time on the train - each stop meaning you have to stop for 5-10 minutes, slow down and speed up, generally not be able to hit top speed in the confines of the city, etc.
The transit time would be nearly triple in the best case scenario for a coast to coast flight in the US.
The only thing I can think that would mitigate this is, as you said, sleeper cars. West coast to east coast is generally considered a lost day between the travel time and the timezone shift. I guess if you start your train journey in the early morning and sleep on the train that evening, arriving in the early morning next day, it could make up for the "get to the family's place and immediately go to sleep" pattern. You're just sleeping enroute rather than at your destination.
For "mid range" journeys, take a bullet train trip I did in Japan: Sendai -> Hiroshima. I spent 6 hours on the train, the flight would've been about and hour and a half plus the extra 2 hours of airport fun. Because it was a vacation I wasn't going to meaningfully fill the "saved" 2 to 3 hours and the train was way more comfortable. But, for business travel, this wouldn't have been good. In the US it's not an uncommon pattern to take a flight to the next major city for same-day business to avoid hotel costs.
For flights so short the airport time exceeds or matches the train difference, obviously this doesn't matter (e.g. SF <-> LA travel if California high speed rail manages to survive until completion).
But you may be sent from SF to Chicago and be expected to attend meetings upon arrival. Can't do that with high speed rail. Even if they went 50% faster, it'll take 7-8 hours to reach Chicago from California.
For the record, I love high speed trains. I've enjoyed using them in the countries that have them. But the longest journey I've ever taken on one is that Sendai to Hiroshima trip, and the second longest is Munich to Berlin (I originated in Innsbruck, Austria but the leg to Munich was not on a high speed train).
It'd be great if we could replace "intra-state" or "neighboring-state" flights with trains, places where they really are faster or at comparable travel times. Obviously none of this is looking at the fact that all of these high speed trains are electric, so they could be powered from zero-carbon or carbon-neutral sources, whereas air travel is a significant source of emissions. But that's a separate argument.
Japan is the size of California.
> You factor that into your plan and travel comfortably and peacefully.
If train travel became as popular as air travel in the US, the TSA would pay just as much attention to making it as miserable as air travel.
So I took train since land borders were much more permissive. Instead of 1.5h flight + a bit of time extra around, it took me full 2 days with extra sleep in Barcelona of fastest bullet trains Europe has (TGV + Spanish equivalent, 300kmh was frequent speed) to get home.
That's not even through-Europe crossing, rather a relatively small hop within south-western part of Europe. It was more expensive as flights too (but not that much, but then there was hotel). Any destination we went through for holidays in past few years are completely unreachable by trains, and the amount of hops (stress, delays, missed connections) is massive. Train networks have much more massive cascade issues with delays propagating like tsunami far and wide. Trains simply don't cover much apart from few very narrow cases in best possible situation globally. Everywhere else, train networks are much worse.
If we could train more of those the airlines might be able to run their continental flights more successfully.
1. Show up to the train station with your bike.
2. In most places, get turned away because you were supposed to pay extra to reserve a bike spot in advance and now they're out of space because there are only like 4 spots in the whole train.
3. Assuming you planned ahead, remove your front wheel so you can hang the bike in a designated luggage rack, there is nowhere else you're allowed to put it. The train cars have not meaningfully changed in 100 years and are not tall enough to fit a bike with the front wheel attached. Seriously, go to the Smithsonian African American History Museum and look at their train car from the 40s, the interior is almost the same as a modern car.
4. Cringe as the train car sways and your bike's front fork repeatedly slams into the wall.
5. At your stop, the conductor starts letting people on before you've unhooked your bike so now you need to fight your way down the aisle against the current of people while holding your partially disassembled bike and bag so you can get off before the doors close.
That said I take Amtrak over a plane every chance I get, I will pay more for it, and I really really wish we had more trains here. I have taken a 48 hour train from Boston to Denver before instead of flying and I'd do it again, even if I can't convince anyone else to do it with me.
- show up with 5 people and bikes 30 minutes before the train leaves with no reservation. They see that we have more bikes than the standard 4 on the train and hook up a special bike storage car with ~50 bike racks that require nothing more than hanging your bike on it.
- get on train.
- get off at destination and go to bike car where they give you your bikes and off you ride.
Not to say thats every time I’ve ridden a train with a bike but its happened more than once.
Mind blowing considering how bicycle friendly it proclaims itself to be.
Everything happens on my own schedule without having to deal with people when I drive.
Traffic is like riding the train but everyone's got a gun pointed at each other
The sad reality is that air travel has much lower cost for fixed infrastructure (≈ airports) compared to trains, per passenger km. If we build an airport, an airline can more or less just fly wherever from that airport. If someone wants to fly 2 hours west to a large city, and others would like to fly 2 hours south, they can just do that without really impacting the other (except for taking up slot times).
With trains every single km of track you lay can only be used going in that direction (duh), and needs to be maintained year around. You have expensive tunnels, bridges and "advanced" control systems and infra all along the track. To extend the rail network to another city is an enormous up-front const, and only "unlocks" one new city (or direction). A (large) airport can be used to go both 45 minutes away on domestic flight or half across the globe.
Similarly, airports require a high up front capital cost and form a network that allows you to reach further than the infrastructure at the starting point allows.
On rail having high maintenance cost for the infrastructure: every flight requires expensive and fragile planes + lots of fuel, so the marginal cost of each trip is high.
So it's a little more complicated to compare the costs than you suggest.
https://www.euronews.com/travel/2022/10/04/spain-short-and-m...
https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/spain-free-train-trips
https://nomadguide.eu/spain-free-trains-explained/
https://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/free-public-tra...
https://www.traveloffpath.com/you-can-travel-through-spain-f...
Price attracts new customers, quality loyalises them (Its a quote from a local rapper. Not train related, but it applies to any business)
Bus is dirt cheap and ok for some trips. Plane is a bit more expensive.
but I'm still willing to take the train (first class) for the extra convenience, especialy when I cross the country several times over a weekend.
Also, plane is only kinda cheap when you book it a long time ago and for peculiar hours and dates. It gets really expensive last minute or on days when demand increases, while train companies can just scale up the number of seats by using more carriages
https://goo.gl/maps/kBGTE82mH7bsyaKk8
LAS-LAX Las Vegas - Los Angeles 286,262 - Take a damn train
HNL-OGG Honolulu - Kahului 281,548 - Maybe don't take a train for that one unless you want to dig a tunnel.
JFK-LAX New York JFK - Los Angeles 274,909 - Alright, plane is useful
LGA-ORD New York La Guardia - Chicago O'Hare 263,499 - Take a damn train
DEN-LAS Denver - Las Vegas 253,959 - Take a damn train
LAX-SFO Los Angeles - San Francisco 247,571 - Take a damn train
ATL-MCO Atlanta - Orlando 239,281 - Take a damn train
LAX-ORD Los Angeles - Chicago O'Hare 231,252 - Flight
DEN-PHX Denver - Phoenix 226,666 - Take a damn train
JFK-SFO New York JFK - San Francisco 215,323 - Flight
Most of your busiest routes could easily be done by train, and even land right in the city instead of being in the middle of nowhere when you land. And that's the busiest routes! Most lesser used flights will be for cities close to one another. Being in a train also lets you work, use your laptop, have internet, get up and walk, grab (overpriced) food in a bar wagon, have a wagon for children to play in, etc. Trains are just better.
So, no, you can't use the "but the US is big" argument every time, sorry.
For example, practically everything involving LAS is connecting to something else which goes further. Orlando is probably the terminus thanks to Disney, but ATL is likely not the originator.
Probably the only route which definitely isn't a hub connector is LAX-SFO as both LAX and SFO are already hubs in and unto themselves. Maybe, LGA-ORD also falls into a similar category.
Here's a video from Wendover Productions about the laws surrounding ownership vs control:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTjLWIHN74
I hope/wish this isn't their motivation. I think people that take suitcases as carry-on are one of the biggest annoyances of flying domestically in the US. Delays everyone getting on and off the plane and leaves no space for items people genuinely need on the plane.
I imagine you're a casual flyer? As someone who has traveled a lot for work I can't agree. I'm someone who needs to move from A->B quickly and can't be bothered worrying about luggage being lost or dealing with delays at the carrousel.
> Delays everyone getting on and off the plane and leaves no space for items people genuinely need on the plane.
Like what? If it's your laptop/similar it can be in a backpack/small bag under the seat. If it's a jacket it can rest behind you on the seat or if you have a bit of space in your bag (under seat or overhead luggage) toss it in there prior to boarding, it's what I always did.
There obviously isn't enough space on the plane for every passenger to take a max-size carry-on suitcase. Therefore, anyone taking one is using more than their fair share, and they should be the ones accommodating the other passengers -- yet it's usually the opposite . These people are usually the ones rushing to board first and taking longer to arrange the luggage. I agree with the GP that these people are the most annoying feature of short-haul flights.
lol what? where does he say anything about needing special treatment? everyone's in the same overhead bin lottery unless you paid for business class or whatever.
i do exactly what the parent comment said as well. you're allowed a carryon and a small backpack. you put the carryon overhead and stuff your backpack at your feet. you either sit on your jacket or stuff it in your bag before you board. important stuff (work laptop, house keys) stays in the backpack and always with you. sometimes they force you to gate check your bag, which is not ideal but fine. keep the backpack.
i traveled a medium amount for work and ended up getting a soft sided duffel. for full flights they start calling for gate checking carryons before they even start boarding. i think this is mostly to save time though, even if there was enough overhead space. i noticed you get preferential treatment with a duffel and several times where they'd let me through but make the person in front of or behind me gate check their bags if they were rollers, even though the bins were "full".
if work was paying i tried to only book direct flights. then i could gate check my bag, board last, and spend as little time crammed on the plane as possible. but my preference was to do carryon as well to save time, especially if there was a connection.
Carry-on is more pleasant for the individual in many cases, as the risk of loss is zero and you don't need to wait at baggage claim.
But when everybody does it is sucks. Boarding and deboarding takes way longer. Overhead space consistently runs out and requires people to check bags anyway.
A friend had to put their carry on away from their seat, and someone else took it (by accident), but by the time my acquaintence’s turn came to get their bag, the other person was so far ahead of them, my friend was unable to catch up to them before they left the airport.
They got it back, but now I keep an eye on my carry on, especially when deboarding. And also have a unique, hard to miss tag on it.
Now, yes. I used to travel a lot for work and held the same opinion then. But my speed requirements must have been different I guess.
Items people genuinely need in the cabin are items they will use whilst in the cabin. It'd be nice if nobody had to have their laptop bag or kids essentials on top of their feet.
You check your luggage, right?
Then you're going to end up waiting at the luggage carousel no matter how long it takes for you to get off the plane.
* Restrooms
* Potentially friendly faces
* Wifi
* Dramatically less claustrophobia
Like the linked article, I also had a bag lost returning from honeymoon. That bag was never returned. It took me more than a year to get the airline to provide any compensation. (SDR 1,500) SDR = "Special Drawing Right, roughly $1,300 at today's conversion rate.
One such case was a connection through Houston where there was a huge electrical storm that delayed flights and forced ramp crew indoors for their protection. After the storm passed the decision was made to get the passengers out even if their bags were late. My bag was delivered to my hotel the following day.
Other cases have been extremely tight connections (that I have willingly chosen to book, against my better judgement) where there is barely enough time to get ME to the connection much less a bag buried in a hold somewhere.
From your link, the success rate for bag transportation ranges from 99.85% to 99.07%.
I honestly don't know how much better it can get.
There must be something going on that people have a perception that bag loss is common, because I take 30-50 trips per year, almost all of them through Chicago (which has a reputation) and almost all of them 2 legs, which is 160 loading operations per year (~40 trips, two legs each, round trip) and no unexplained bag losses or delays.
Is there a specific mode of air travel, like the crazy weird itineraries that people come up with to save $60 on airfare? Or weird, oddly-shaped, hard-to-handle bags? (I've seen taped-up coolers and trash bags used as checked luggage)
Broken luggage? That's a different story. Airlines have broken so many of my suitcases that I now transport my dirty laundry home in a Pelican Air 1615.
(edit: and they're doing their best to break that-- good luck!)
1) For every bag that’s carry-on is one that a baggage handler doesn’t have to deal with (as well as reducing risks of losing it and all those logistics), so they can reduce the number of people they need to pay.
2) Unused overhead space is wasted space. They’re spending a huge amount of fuel to transport X cubic feet of space from one place to another. If the overheads are half empty, that’s wasted space. They want all the overhead space to be used so they have more space available in the hold.
That extra space in the hold is something they can sell. They can carry tons of FedEx envelopes, Amazon packages, etc. as cargo, and of course they can make more money from that than if they used the space for passengers who already paid for the space in the cabin.
This trend may be changing post-covid (still remains to be seen).
Personally, having moved with 2 kids and ~8 pieces of baggage to and from Europe recently (and getting priority treatment about 60% of time)… I don’t wanna see a suitcase in my life ever again.
1) Couple arrived with no bags.
2) Couple put in "lost bag" notice with Air Canada.
3) Air Canada didn't find the bag within 30 days and paid compensation (per law).
4) Couple deposited compensation.
5) The bag (along with others) in a big pile was donated to charity.
The status of the bag is iffy once compensation is paid.
IANAL, but I think its like the cases where a car is stole, insurance pays out, and then the car is recovered. You don't own that car in that case.
What's the basis for asserting it was lost baggage compensation?
This is similar to how car insurance or home content insurance works. Most people think the value of something for insurance or compensation is the price they paid, which is wrong. The value is the price currently of a comparable item for sale.
If the car you paid $50K for 8 years ago gets stolen, they don't give you $50K for it but instead the price of comparable 8 year old car.
Same thing with home insurance. If someone comes in and steals your MacBook Pro which you paid $5000 for 8 years ago, they don't give you $5000. They find out how much a similar MacBook Pro sells for on ebay, etc and give you that.
The article states the couple was compensated for 25% of the value of the luggage, whereas the passenger's bill of rights seems to say that the airline is liable for the full value of the lost luggage, up to a limit.
Which was submitted in response to your previous comment that The “delay bag” is only paid if it’s delayed. If it’s lost then it’s not paid and then “lost” is paid.
I am not interested in your exposition of how insurance works, which is a distraction from the simpler question of 'lost or delayed'. Out of courtesy, I think you should respond to that other poster's point instead of grinding your axe on mine.
Paying out 25% of the value is not a fair compensation when they're too lazy to retrieve a tracked bag.
Home insurance actually works _exactly_ this way. As long as you have a mortgage in the US, you're going to be required to carry enough insurance to pay for the full cost of completely rebuilding a similar brand new home in the event the home is destroyed.
Let say you buy brand new MacBook Pro for $5000 in 2016. Someone breaks into your home and steals it. Most people when they file the insurance claim thinks the value of the MacBook Pro is $5000 (what they paid for it), but that's not true. The value is the price of a similar 2016 era MacBook Pro on second hand market places (ebay, etc). So lets say that 2016 MacBook Pro similar to yours is selling for $800 on ebay, insurance will compensate you $800.
With RCV coverage they will pay for a new MacBook Pro with similar RAM and storage and screen.
I’d guess that most people on HN go for RCV on their homeowners’ insurance. I remember once looking into how much I would save if I switch the personal property coverage of my homeowner’s policy from RCV to ACV and while I don’t remember the amount I remember my reaction was “it’s that little!?” and I kept it RCV.
This is at least partially addressed in the article.
> “So I looked into the terms and conditions to see if me accepting compensation changed over ownership to Air Canada, and there’s nothing,” she said, adding that their bag has been “wrongfully donated.”
I think this is reasonable. Just because the airline paid compensation doesn't mean they can donate bags that they don't own. At the very least, they should have some kind of publicly accessible database to list these for a while before donation.
In no scenario does donating bags that they have misplaced make sense, should be enough data on the luggage to know who it belongs to and at least ask them to collect it or offer to post it.
It's not my fault that the airline luggage handling system tore off their tag.
I don't care if it costs the airline $5000 to reunite me with my $50 luggage. Tough noogies for the airline.
We need to get out of this mindset that companies get to inconvenience individuals and then get to set the compensation level, too.
If airlines had to pay out $10,000 per lost bag, they'd be stellar about tracking bags.
It seems terrible that people should be forced to sell their luggage to an airline... because the airline lost it.
At the time the airline offers compensation, the choice is between nothing and whatever the airline offers. That's can hardly be considered a fair exchange of ownership. Obviously, it's built in to the situation that there is a low chance the luggage will be recovered.
I'd say if the luggage is recovered, the airline could request money back, minus an amount to compensate the travelers for the inconvenience and the temporary loss of the items. Consider, e.g., that they may have needed to replace some items on short notice. If the amount the airline paid is as small as is suggested here, it doesn't sound like they should get much of anything back. Note that the travelers recovered the luggage themselves.
I'm not familiar with the canadian banking system but it looks like the money was directly posted ("push") rather than provided in a way that required positive action on the part of the recipient.
Therefore, if the money was indeed sent through e-Transfer, then it is possible that the Couple received the compensation without any positive action. I am not sure if one could make the argument that the onus is on the Couple to actively reject the compensation and reverse the transfer.
Devil's advocate: The airline doesn't have access to the tracking data that the customer did. It's one of hundreds of bags they can't find owners for. Donating them doesn't seem like too bad of an option, provided they still make the customer whole.
Bag lost? Just share the tag location with a ticket-specific email generated by the booking system, and some division of luggage services at the airline has the job description of delegating the finding of the luggage based on that data.
Hard agree.
> The airline doesn't have access to the tracking data that the customer did.
If that's the case, the customers could have done better. Last year I had a delayed baggage with TAP Portugal. My suitcase stayed in Lisbon and never arrived with me in Brazil. I had an AirTag in it. I sent daily emails to TAP with screenshots of FindMy showing that my bag was within a specific area of the Lisbon airport.
> It's one of hundreds of bags they can't find owners for.
They can certainly do better if that's the case. The bag has a tag with a number and a barcode. Those should point to a specific customer. The customer has already complained about the lost bag. The system should be able to match those 2 ends easily.
> Donating them doesn't seem like too bad of an option, provided they still make the customer whole.
Often getting money doesn't make the customer whole. There are personal items in a bag. There are special gift pieces of clothing. There might be mementos from the trip. There could be other items and artefacts that are irreplaceable to the customer. Money only makes it less bad but it will never completely compensate for the loss of those things.
Even if they did that, doesn't everyone out a luggage tag on their bags with name and contact info?
This just feels like the price of blowing off customers is entirely too low.
These can get caught on things and detach occasionally. It's rare enough that it will probably never happen to you in your lifetime but common enough that it happens to many people every day.
given that over 13 million trips were taken on air canada alone even if they lost 1 in every 1000 bags (assuming roughly 1 bag per passenger which may not be accurate) then there would be 13,000 bags lost every year
I pretty much never do. But I should.
Merely compensating for damages implies the bag was lost in good faith. I can't just steal your car and pay you fair market value for it without your agreement.
It's not clear the airline could really determine which bag it was. I imagine these lost baggage centers have a very large amount of bags. Finding it is a needle in a hackstack problem under the likely assumption that the bag is lost because the airline paper tag was missing or unreadable.
There aren't enough facts to determine any active choice was made here. The airline should pay for the bag, but nothing seem malicious here.
They should be required to show some good faith effort that their labelling system is design to be reliable instead of the cheapest possible, and also show they have made a good faith effort to return the mound of lost bags.
But this is also why I leave a business card or two inside the suitcase.
Nothing about how the airline handled this is reasonable. The couple was tracking their bag as soon as it didn't show up at baggage claim. They knew exactly where it was when they filed the lost bag report. The airline actively ignored this information and spent weeks doing nothing meaningful about it before paying up for the lost bag.
What you describe is a reasonable outcome when the airline has no way of knowing where the bag went, but this simply was not the case here.
There are two kinds of scannable identification placed on luggage. The first is the more obvious loop tag, and the second are 2 secondary smaller barcode stickers, at least one of which is placed on the luggage directly in case the main tag is somehow removed.
Beyond that there are also the manual bag tags/slide-outs which most luggage still utilises, as well as the international bag-tracking service used by airlines. Additionally customers are instructed to describe their bag and contents as part of the lost bag process.
Because of this bags can be reunited with owners. The ones that are not seem to stem from staffing and procedural issues, which explains why some airlines are notorious for losing bags (e.g. AirEuropa.)
In too many cases already we see people who are able to locate their lost bag via an AirTag being ignored. AirTags also reveal that bags are often lost multiple times, such as when a person takes a holiday and their bags arrive well after they have left - complicating the recovery as the bag is now lost in a foreign airport and all recovery efforts are at arm's length.
They asked me for the login and they were going to use Find to get to the phone. I got there first and it turns out it was just lost. But I was surprised that they would use it.
If that's genuinely what they do, would be nice if Apple implemented a police version of 'Find my Friends' to let you give them permission to track the device rather than the password.
I doubt the police (the person, not the organisation) knows or cares what else can be done with the password, to them it's just the hoop they need to jump through to see what they need to see for the task at hand.
I wouldn't imagine they would have the organisational capability to misuse those passwords, other than the individual realising they could look through iCloud photos or something.
It's still bad, and Apple should implement a sharing or law enforcement mode for this case, but I doubt it's malicious at the state level.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_depend...
We have much fewer officers per capita than France or Germany, but these countries have much less crime than we do. Considering how much crime we have, we should have way more police than other countries, but it’s not the reality.
https://academic.oup.com/bjc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10...
recent evidence in police budget reductions
Only about 8% of US cities have reallocated police founding elsewhere; most have increased it since 2020, and in nearly half of jurisdictions it has risen by >10%.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/defunding-claims-police-funding-in...
The US also spends more than most other developed countries as a % of GDP, though less than Russia and Costa Rica: https://www.workandmoney.com/s/police-spending-by-country-98...
I don't have access to this study, so I cannot really comment on it, but this is just one study. When you take the evidence as a whole, the picture is quite different. See for example this systematic review, which looked at 49 separate studies and it did find that, yes, "police presence has mostly crime reduction effects on crimes related to motor theft, property, violence and guns. Police presence also reduces calls for service and improves traffic behaviour".
Additionally, these misdemeanor arrests have been very useful in reducing violent crime rate in NYC. NYC cops under Giuliani and Bloomberg would harass people for trivial shit, find guns on them that they weren't allowed to possess, and then throw the book at them for it. This resulted in carrying a gun being too risky activity for NYC criminals, which resulted in great reduction in shootings, homicide, and other crime involving use of guns like robbery and carjacking. Now, of course, one might object to this strategy, based on morality or legality of it, but what you cannot object to is whether it worked, because it clearly did. This is my point: police activity reduces crime.
> Only about 8% of US cities have reallocated police founding elsewhere; most have increased it since 2020, and in nearly half of jurisdictions it has risen by >10%.
Given that inflation since 2020 has been over 10%, that means that more than half of jurisdiction did cut police funding in real terms.
> The US also spends more than most other developed countries as a % of GDP, though less than Russia and Costa Rica: https://www.workandmoney.com/s/police-spending-by-country-98...
And Russia and Costa Rica indeed have crime rates similar to ours. Rather more importantly than spend, though, is how much we actually get for it. Seems like policing is another one of those fields, like medicine and education, where we spend more than other countries as a percentage of GDP, but get less value for the spend. This is why I'm talking about actual metrics like police officers per capita, not dollars spent on policing.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/relation...
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10610-021-09500-8
> The systematic search strategies yielded 49 studies focusing on testing the effects of police presence or evaluating its measurement. We find evidence that police presence has mostly crime reduction effects on crimes related to motor theft, property, violence and guns. Police presence also reduces calls for service and improves traffic behaviour. Police presence focused on specific areas, times and types of crime achieves maximum effectiveness. The reviewed studies show a high degree of heterogeneity in reporting which limits comparability of findings across studies. Research on police presence presents evidence for significant crime preventative effects of focused police actions and shows strongest effects when focused on certain areas, times, or types of crimes
Look at the 49 studies they went through. Most of them show that adding officers lowers crime. Now you have seen the data.
Now, given that the homicide rate gap is real and not just reporting artifact, what about other crime? It stands to reason that the disparities there are also real, but there still might be differences in reporting, which could either exaggerate or diminish the reported gap. Which is it?
In my view, the latter is true: the gap between US and Europe is even worse than it seems. This whole thread is a great example: Americans don’t even bother reporting a lot of crime, because it is a common knowledge that it won’t do much. In Europe, people report much more petty crime, because the cops will actually follow up on a lot of it, and the justice system will actually punish the offenders. This means that the real crime gap is even bigger than the reported one.
This is also clear to anyone who actually has experience living in both places. I grew up in Poland, I live in relatively safe US city (Seattle), and the amount of crime I observe here is probably a whole order of magnitude higher than I did back in Poland.
> And secondly because there are absolutely detrimental effects of policing, and this would lead into a conversation more about what the goals of policing should be
Yes, I agree that there is a trade off here. However, in US, the balance is completely lopsided towards the costs of crime. Criminals impose massive burden on everyone around them, including their families. Crime has enormous costs to victims, but also huge negative externalities. For example, if you own a house in a crime ridden neighborhood, then even if you are never a victim of crime yourself, just the fact that people avoid your neighborhood costs you probably tens of thousands of dollars in terms of lost property values. Businesses avoid crime ridden locations, resulting in fewer jobs and services for residents. Really, the negatives of increased policing would have to be quite enormous to make up for the benefits.
For a real world example, look at how much more flourishing NYC has become after Giuliani and Bloomberg cleaned it up. Do you thing that NYC residents would prefer to go back to 1985 era?
> Does incarcerating people too much lead to higher crime rates in the future when they're released?
Compared to what? Even if you ignore deterrence role, incarceration reduces crime purely by incapacitating criminal’s ability to do crime. Hard to victimize people when you’re locked up.
Crime is young men’s game, and most of it is committed by very small fraction of population. They commit most of their crime between 16 and 35, with crime activity sharply tapering thereafter. If you incarcerate those repeat offenders for many years, and release them only once they are older and cooled off, than increase in criminality induced by incarceration will be more than made up by reduction in criminality during prime crime years.
We need to incarcerate more people, and do it for longer. That’s exactly how we achieved long decrease in crime, starting in mid 90s. People understood that. Senator Joe Biden was major sponsor of crime reform bill that was designed to do exactly that, put more criminals in jail for longer. It’s a shame that we were made to forget that, and now we reap the fruit of reduced policing and increased criminal exuberance, with crime rates hugely spiking starting from June 2020.
I cannot respect this claim at all. Incarceration destroys lives when it overwhelmingly doesn't need to happen. Taking away the most formative years of someone's life and then releasing them into society after endless years of inhumane treatment with no meaningful income or resources is absolutely not a net positive for society. Throwing people in prison only worsens the problems of poverty and systemic racism which leads to further crime.
There are a lot of factors that went into crime decreases in the 90s, and it was happening before the crime bill. The crime bill was awful to the point that Biden himself called it a big mistake.
Look, I simply do not care much about well-being of repeat offenders. If someone is getting convicted for their third felony, then given the reporting, clearance and conviction rates, it is highly likely that this is more like 10th-20th felony he committed, not 3rd. This means that he victimized a lot of people, and if we let him out, he'll likely victimize many more. Why don't you think about the well being of the victims, instead of that of the criminal? They typically cannot do much to avoid being victimized, whereas for the criminal, it is very easy to avoid jail: all he needs to do is to not commit crime. Overwhelming majority of people, including some very poor ones, manage to do it. If you don't want to waste your youth in jail, stop committing crime, what is the problem with this message?
Yes, I do, and I think we are creating more victims of crime over the long term with with our current approach to incarceration.
> I simply do not care much about well-being of repeat offenders
I really hope you have the opportunity to meet and spend time with people who have done significant time in prison. There are some absolute shit people in prison, but the vast majority of them are really well-meaning, well-intentioned, loving human beings who've made mistakes. People who have committed crimes aren't intentionally trying to create victims in the vast majority of cases. They're making poor decisions or finding themselves in poor situations that result in victims. And in a massive amount of cases, there's no victim at all (thanks war on drugs).
People find themselves in difficult places in life. Likely difficult ways you've never dreamed of. People get desperate. People get to the end of their rope. People lack support systems. People are the product of inter-generational poverty and struggling in large part due to, you guessed it, the massive scale of incarceration in this country. People are responsible for their actions. But given a lot of circumstances, I understand why they made the choices they did, even if someone else got hurt as a result. It doesn't justify it, but it's understandable.
These are real human beings and it's really sad to hear you don't care about the well-being of fellow humans.
I think you are very wrong here, but I don’t think that there is anything at all that could possibly convince you otherwise.
> I really hope you have the opportunity to meet and spend time with people who have done significant time in prison. There are some absolute shit people in prison, but the vast majority of them are really well-meaning, well-intentioned, loving human beings who've made mistakes.
The only people I know who have been in prison are members of my extended family, who I would by no means describe as well-meaning, well intentioned, loving human beings. So no, I don’t find very convincing.
But, even granting this, if someone is found by the justice system to have committed a serious, felony-level “mistake” three separate times (which in practice means he committed this “mistake” many more times, given the gaps in detection and conviction rates), it is beside the point whether they were “well-intentioned”: if they repeatedly keep “finding themselves in poor situations that result in victims”, we need to prevent them from creating any more victims, and prison is extremely effective at this job.
> People are the product of inter-generational poverty and struggling in large part due to, you guessed it, the massive scale of incarceration in this country.
In huge swaths of the world, poverty is much, much higher than in poorest places in America, but crime is relatively nonexistent. Consider, for example, Bangladesh, where average income is less than what you get in US from food stamps alone, but homicide rate is less than half of US. Even in US, huge majority of poor people do not commit crime. Being poor is extremely poor excuse for crime, when huge majority of the poor manages to avoid breaking into other people’s homes to steal their valuables, or beating other people to within an inch of their life.
> But given a lot of circumstances, I understand why they made the choices they did, even if someone else got hurt as a result. It doesn't justify it, but it's understandable.
In many cases I also do understand that, but it only makes me despise them even more. Overwhelming majority of people, including very poor and down-trodden people would not do the same thing in their shoes. However, in other cases I simply do not find any reasonable explanation whatsoever. The guy who threatened to beat me up as I was waiting for the bus has no reason to do it whatsoever, and he definitely did not appear loving and well intentioned.
> These are real human beings and it's really sad to hear you don't care about the well-being of fellow humans.
Yes, I do not care about the well being of some fellow humans, if they committed acts which clearly and unequivocally proved them not deserving of being treated charitably, and who by those acts destroyed well being of many other people. Crime is really heinous thing, and its damaging impact on victims is really understated. You asked me to meet and spend time with crime perpetrators. I ask you in return to spend time with crime victims instead. It appears to me that you care much less about them than about people victimizing them.
in the USA the number is $3800 for domestic flights
Is the fact that the data was corrupted, or there was a software issue that this couldn't match up.
Or are the bags just listed as being on a flight, and routed to the collection carousel.
Or is a case of the manager at the bag handling facility was under staffed, and overwhelmed by this all and just tried to be rid of the problem?
This strikes me as something cheap to implement that would help everyone involved.
Could there be a financial incentive for Apple?
Even if Apple didn't charge directly for it (and they could charge the Airlines to cut down on lost baggage) they'd get a boost in sales of the AirTags.
I know we all concentrate on the failures in the system like this but the logistics involved in getting bags off a plane then delivered to dozens of different connecting flights while the same thing happens on dozens of other planes as well as adhoc "checked at the gate" bags getting added in with everything being correctly sorted, grouped, and transported 99% of the time, often with less than an hour to do it, is kind of amazing.
Yet FedEx seems to have a way lower rate of missing packages.
Why do they publish something and then put up a barrier to reading it?
While I personally have never had a bad luggage experience, I've heard countless horror stories. Being able to watch my bag move around the airport and eventually board my plane provides a lot of peace of mind.
Young and naive with airline travel, my wife lost her childhood bear when the airline lost our luggage, and we arrived in another country with nothing. Decades on and long divorced, I still get multiple punches in the gut and attacks of tears when I'm reminded of her broken-hearted lament.